Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Monsanto Europe Company (Ruabon)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Monsanto Europe Company about its decision to declare redundant one-fifth of the labour force at the Company's Ruabon factory.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have had a full and detailed discussion with the chairman and two of his senior colleagues

Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the apprehension felt in my constituency about the continued well-being of this works? Is he aware that while his answer will be welcomed, nothing would be more reassuring for a works which has seen its labour force reduced from 2,000 some years ago to just under 1,000 today than to have

considerable investment by the company linked with Government grant assistance for the development of a new product line at Ruabon? Did the Secretary of State discuss the possibility of this?

Mr. Thomas: I discussed the matter fully with the chairman and his colleagues who made it clear, as I believe they made it clear to the employees at Cefn Mawr, when they met them later, that following the closure of the two loss-making units in question, the works would in future be viable. I understood the apprehensions that existed and I was happy to hear from the firm that there was no policy decision to close the works in the immediate or long-term future.

Dee Estuary

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to a decision about the projected reclamation of the Dee Estuary.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to give his approval to the Dee crossing scheme

Mr. Peter Thomas: As I have told the House previously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have this matter under review. We hope to announce our preliminary conclusions as soon as possible

Mr. Tilney: As my right hon. and learned Friend said last year that he


hoped to make an announcement early this year, will he bear in mind that this multi-purpose scheme has been under consideration for a decade now, and that there is massive unemployment in the North-West. Is it not time that such a scheme, which is likely to pay for itself and to improve the amenities of the North West, was decided upon?

Mr. Thomas: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but this is a very large multi-purpose project of great complexity. It needs to be examined with the greatest care, even before a preliminary conclusion can be reached

Mr. Jones: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman please stop dithering and say "Yes" or "No" and put us out of our misery on this issue? Is he not aware that Humberside has been granted its bridge across the Humber? Is he not further aware that the impression getting around now is that he has been pushed around by the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Thomas: This is a decision which is not taken by me alone. It is a matter of considerable complexity, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that each aspect needs to be evaluated separately and all aspects evaluated collectively. I can assure him that there is no question of dithering. We wish to reach a preliminary conclusion as soon as possible.

Secondary Education (Bedwellty)

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the expansion of facilities for comprehensive secondary education in the part of Monmouthshire comprising the Bedwellty Constituency in the period 1972 to 1974

Mr. Peter Thomas: This is primarily a matter for the Monmouthshire Local Education Authority. Apart from the Bedwas area the Authority has no plans for reorganising secondary education in the Bedwellty constituency by 1974.

Mr. Kinnock: While thanking the Secretary of State for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that Risca is part of the Bedwellty constituency and that the local education authority is not altogether happy with the insistence by his Department on an alternative site for the Risca comprehensive school? In view of that, will he give a firmer answer

today than he gave me on 17th January when he said that the school was included in the 1972–73 building programme and tell me now that he guarantees that the school will be started in Risca by the end of the financial year 1972–73 so that the fears in my constituency can be put at rest?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a firm answer today. I will look into this and write to the hon. Gentleman giving as detailed an answer as I can.

Paediatric Services (West Wales)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Working Party on Children in Hospital in Wales are being acted upon in planning the future of paediatric services in West Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Developments in the paediatric services planned for West Wales by the Welsh Hospital Board are consistent with the Interim Report. This report was given wide circulation and comments have been invited for consideration by the Board's Working Party

Mr. Edwards: But is my hon. Friend aware that the Working Party urged that a simple population-based norm was inappropriate as a guide to the appointment of paediatricians in Wales, that centralisation makes it difficult to maintain home contact and that travelling time and distance should be taken into account in planning services? Is this being done at Withybush? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the report is published?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: First, the final report of the Working Party will not be presented to the Welsh Hospital Board before May. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend is aware, an application by the Board for permission to appoint an additional consultant in paediatrics in West Wales to be based at Carmarthen has been submitted to the Advisory Committee on Consultant Establishments and a decision is awaited.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman resist any temptation to cling to a rigid policy of localising specialist services at the base hospitals only, or


mainly at the base hospitals? Does he accept that there are areas in Mid-Wales where patients, their friends and families have to travel between 70 and 80 miles to get to the hospital which, with public transport services as they are, sometimes involves more than a day's travelling? This is a real problem of deprivation.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I appreciate that this is a very great problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but, as I have said, professional opinion opposes single-handed appointments in the paediatric specialty, and it is thought that by basing the second consultant at Carmarthen the best use can be made of available resources while at the same time providing the most satisfactory service for the area as a whole.

Employment Prospects

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the employment prospects in Wales for 1972.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Employment prospects in 1972 should improve as a result of Government measures to stimulate output.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, with only 4,000 new jobs created last year, the situation could hardly be worse? However, will he give an assurance that if unemployment in Wales rises to 60,000 in the next few months he will resign his seat in the Cabinet, and will he tell us whether that will be in February or in March?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates from what he has read, there is great anticipation of guided growth in the economy this year and, with the co-operation of all those interested, there is no reason why Wales should not benefit.

Mr. John Morris: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he is speaking like Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up? How does he intend to explain to the people of Wales why his Government's policy of switching from investment grants to investment allowances has been a miserable failure? Is he aware that in Mid-Glamorgan and

Port Talbot average male unemployment is running at 8·9 per cent.? At Cymmer, there are 245 men unemployed—one in five of the insured male population.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware of the unemployment figures in Wales, which I consider to be deplorable in human, social and economic terms. But the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the last Labour Administration, will appreciate that the policy of deflation pursued by his Government is at the base of many of the difficulties we are facing today. That is why the present Government have pursued a massive policy of reflation, the benefits of which we shall start to see in 1972.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that his policy has collapsed around him, that there are 20,000 people under 25 years of age unemployed in Wales and that as a result of his policies unemployment has increased by 60 per cent.? Is it not about time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman stood on his own two feet and accepted responsibility for the dismal failure of his policy?

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman should accept his share of responsibility, because he was a member of the Cabinet during six years of economic stagnation, rising import price controls and runaway inflation, which we inherited.

Secretary of State (Newspaper Articles)

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to write his next article in a Welsh newspaper in his official capacity.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am always ready to consider requests from editors of Welsh newspapers to contribute articles.

Mr. John: In the next article which he writes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman leave aside the brainless bromides which normally litter his efforts and tell the 56,000 unemployed Welsh people when they may expect jobs, why new job creation is down to one-third of its 1971 level and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer's miracle, which the Secretary of State was proclaiming in November, 1970, would happen "any week now", has not happened?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the many measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1971 involving massive reflationary activity—

Mr. John Morris: Mr. Micawber

Mr. Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the alliterative nature of his well-prepared supplementary question. I do not intend to be complacent about the situation, but the question which I was asked concerned articles in newspapers. The key to prosperity is industrial confidence, and it is essential to say loud and clear—hon. Members opposite refrain from saying it—that the outlook in terms of production and sales is brighter now than it has been for a long time.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the two great Welsh newspapers would be a great deal more readable if they were not half filled with the turgid outpourings of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas)?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir

Mr. Fred Evans: In his next article, will the Secretary of State explain to the people of Wales why the cheerful optimism that things were on the upturn is at variance with the recent survey undertaken by major industrialists who foresee no great expansion in employment and production in their industries?

Mr. Thomas: The major industrialists forecast at the beginning of this year that 1972 would be a year of growth.

Fair Rents

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what alternatives were considered by his Department before deciding on the proposals for fair rents in Wales as contained in the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Government's objectives in relation to the reform of housing finance which were set out in the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" can satisfactorily be met only by the interrelated proposals embodied in the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Roderick: I do not accept that as a reply to my Question. Is the hon.

Gentleman aware that the Prices and Incomes Board rejected the concept of fair rents some years ago? Now we are embarking on legislation which will lead to a doubling of rents for council house tenants and the making of profits on council house rents. I should like the Minister to explain, if he can, why Scotland should have different legislation, based on historic costs, which will lead to lower rents for council house tenants.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. In the time available, I can answer only one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the others. In marked contrast to the previous Administration, who, after six years' consideration, totally failed to deal with the acknowledged problem of local authority housing finance, we have formulated and presented our Bill within 12 months of taking office.

Mr. Roderick: On a point of order. I am concerned that the Minister did not reply to my original Question. I asked him what alternatives had been considered.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us and the Welsh people why Wales is getting a more raw deal than Scotland in the matter of rents, why there are different proposals for Scotland compared with England and why there is no Minister from the Welsh Office serving on the Committee considering the Housing Finance Bill to deal with the question of rents in Wales?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Gentleman had been here on Thursday last week he would have heard the Leader of the House answer that question. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said.

House Building (Special Problems)

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent he has examined the financial position created for Welsh local authorities who have special house construction problems.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Where Welsh local authorities have special housing construction problems the proposals contained in


the Housing Finance Bill will alleviate their burden since subsidies will be directed to the authorities which have the greatest need.

Mr. McBride: I do not believe a word of that. Nor do the Welsh people. Is the Minister aware that I was dealing with a specific project? I draw his attention to the lower Swansea valley. Will he make Government finance available to the local authority for regional development in the derelict areas of the Swansea valley? Is he aware that the cost of rehabilitation to development standards will result in too high a burden to be borne by Swansea City Council? Lastly, is he aware that this project would also provide employment for the unemployed in Swansea?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Member will write to me about the details I will answer him. I cannot be expected to know the details of a particular housing problem unless the hon. Gentleman has given me notice. I will answer him if he writes to me. The housing cost yardstick which is used as the main basis for the payment of subsidies for new house building is designed to take into account any special house construction problems known to the local authorities, and it is kept continuously under review.

Bristol Channel (Pollution)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what schemes and works will be carried out in the next five years, and at what approximate cost, to deal with problems of pollution by sewage disposal or by industrial effluent or waste in the vicinity of Barry, Rhoose, Sully and adjacent places along the South Wales coast of the Bristol Channel; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: There are a number of schemes in hand or in course of preparation which will improve domestic sewage and industrial effluent outfall conditions in the Channel in the area or adjacent to the places mentioned. I am circulating the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gower: Has my hon. Friend noted the many expressions of concern about these matters, particularly about the state of the sea water along the coast

mentioned, and will he consider this matter with tremendous urgency?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the proper concern of my hon. Friend on this subject. As far as the medical implications of Mr. William Smith's report are concerned, my officials have been in touch with the medical officer of Penarth, who has indicated that to his knowledge there have been no cases of infection contracted from bathing in the sea at Penarth.

Following are the details:

The following schemes are in hand or in course of preparation to improve domestic sewage and industrial effluent outfall conditions in the Bristol Channel in the area or adjacent to the places mentioned in the Question.

SCHEMES ALREADY UNDER WAY
1. Newport County Borough Schemes to provide full treatment to replace existing crude sewage discharges from approximately 17 outfalls—estimated cost £4·5 million.
2. Penybont Joint Sewerage Board's project to provide full treatment to replace the existing crude sewage discharge to the River Ogmore and to construct a new long sea outfall—estimated cost £7 million.

SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATION WHICH SHOULD START WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS

3. (i) Cardiff City Council's and Penarth Urban District Council's joint proposal for a long sea outfall at Lavernock to replace the existing outfall. It is proposed that all of Penarth's present outfalls then be diverted into the new long outfall. Estimated cost in excess of £1 million.

(ii) Barry Borough Council's proposed sea outfall at Cold Knapp to replace the existing outfall. The total scheme estimated to cost £2·6 million.

(iii) A new outfall at Port Talbot to replace existing estuarial discharges and to provide for the disposal of future industrial wastes. Estimated cost £2 million. (A joint reconstruction scheme between Port Talbot B.C., Neath B.C. and Neath R.D.C. which includes a long sea outfall at Baglan has recently been completed at a cost of approximately £3·5 million; the new Baglan B.P. Complex discharges its trade waste through this outfall).

Cement Quarry (Cefn Mawr)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what communications he has received about the circumstances in which planning permission was given for the extension of the Portland Cement Company's quarry at Cefn Mawr in Flint-shire; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We have received three letters of protest. I am having inquiries made into this matter and will reply as soon as these are complete.

Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but would he urge upon the planning authorities in Wales not to rest content with the existing inadequate statutory provisions for consultation but to go out and tell people, whose property or whose livelihood may be affected, of planning decisions, and will he keep in very close touch with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment who are, as I understand it from the debate last week, about to issue a circular of guidance to authorities in England on this subject?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I know that this is a problem. Without going into details at this stage I would say that I have been given to understand that the local parish council was consulted in this case as well as other bodies and that there was no objection to the application at the time.

Mid-Wales

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement concerning Mid-Wales

Mr. Peter Thomas: I outlined the Government's policy to the Welsh Grand Committee last year. I have recently announced my willingness to assist the development of the growth towns by considering applications from the authorities concerned for grants under Section 7 of the Local Employment Act on a wider basis than hitherto

Mr. Morgan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, since his Government withdrew the rural development board for Wales, in so far as any comprehensive plan for growth in Mid-Wales is concerned the Government have exhibited complete bankruptcy and sterility of policy? Does he also accept that his statement a few weeks ago to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association that he would decide on the designation of new growth towns when it was established that Newtown was financially viable is a very indefinite yardstick justifying delay for 20 to 40 years?

Mr. Thomas: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench opposite? I do not accept the first part of his supplementary question. If he were to read the statement I made to the Welsh Grand Committee on 28th April he would see that I formulated a definite policy, much of which was a policy which was laid down by the previous Administration which I have adopted. The other day, to the Development Association, I was able to announce an important and, indeed, unique concession to Mid-Wales—the enlargement of the basis of Section 7 of the Local Employment Act grants.

Mr. Roderick: Would the Secretary of State accept that he left the Mid-Wales Development Corporation members in considerable doubt as to his intentions in this matter? He would not accept that the expansion of the activities of Newtown corporation should go ahead immediately. Will he revise that opinion about their standing on their own two feet as he is expecting growth towns to do?

Mr. Thomas: I made the position quite clear to the Development Association. I said that I did not rule out the possibility of extending the corporation's remit at some future date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—but that I had no immediate plans in that direction. My intention was to see whether the Corporation in Newtown could be judged a success.

Infrastructure

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional expenditure on infrastructure schemes in Wales has been allocated for the years 1971–72 and 1972–73; and how many additional jobs this has created.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Details of the £21 million programme to be undertaken mainly in the period to March, 1973, were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 18th October, 1971. A high proportion of the further £9 million allocated for trunk and principal road schemes will also be spent in this period. As regards additional employment I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29th November, 1971, to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John.)—[Vol. 827, c. 4.]

Mr. Jones: May we take it that if the Secretary of State is not able to tell us the figures of the additional employment being created he will cease blowing his own trumpet by publishing these figures at frequent intervals, and, above all, that he will bear in mind that the people of Wales will expect him in their interests to resist any further weakening in regional policy as suggested by the Prime Minister last week? If there is any further weakening of regional policy through the allocation of I.D.C.s the people of Wales will expect at least the resignation of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Thomas: That supplementary question goes a little wider than the main Question, which refers to infrastructure. The fact that an additional £30 million will be spent, or that its expenditure will be accelerated, in Wales, means inevitably that employment will be provided.

Mr. Jones: How long will it take?

Mr. Kinnock: When?

Mr. Thomas: These schemes have only just started and, undoubtedly, there will be in 1972–73 a period of acceleration of a number of schemes. Many of them will be dealt with by local authorities. It is impossible for one to be precise about the number of jobs, but if we accelerate expenditure by £30 million, inevitably that will provide employment.

Mr. Jones: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Straying Animals

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made by the working party which he set up to examine the problems caused by straying animals, particularly in South Wales.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The working party has met eight times and has received written evidence from 83 bodies. Investigation is continuing.

Mr. Probert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Bill passed last year rectified a serious anomaly in the law dealing with stray animals, the position in South Wales is still serious and

the public are awaiting the results of the working party, and indeed the Government's proposals, to put an end to this continuing, vexatious problem?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have chaired six of the eight meetings of the working party, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a complicated matter which is different in almost every part of South Wales. I am sure that he would be the first to give credit to the Government for being the first Government to tackle the problem.

Mr. McBride: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what solution he offered to the Swansea City Council, on the occasion of his recent visit, to the problem of the large number of apparently owner-less horses which are causing depredation?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I had a most interesting conversation with the Mayor and Council of Swansea on the subject of horses in Swansea. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know the details, I shall be glad to go into them with him later.

Cwmbran New Town (Unemployment)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the results of his review of the unemployment situation in Cwmbran New Town; and whether he will now include Cwmbran New Town within the Welsh development area

Mr. Peter Thomas: No decision on future status has been taken. I agree that the unemployment situation is serious but, as I have previously said, a decision on Cwmbran cannot be taken in isolation

Mr. Abse: Is the Secretary of State aware that his inertia and dalliance are causing despair in Cwmbran, where hundreds of men are leaving the town to seek employment in England or elsewhere? What is the rationale of investing millions in a new town and taking no action to rescue the new town from the unemployment which, while he is dallying, is increasing? There have been redundancies in Panteg Steel Works and Guest Keen, and further redundancies affecting the new town will result from the British Steel, Stewart and Lloyd, announcement of closure in Newport. Is he prepared to do practically nothing?


How much longer must we wait for the decision on whether this will be a development area?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Decisions on the status of individual areas, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, cannot be taken without regard to the situation elsewhere, and the claims of other areas in Wales have to be taken into account. I assure the hon. Gentleman that decisions will be taken as soon as possible

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if Cwmbran is made a development area and the efforts of the Government are no greater in the new town than they are in the present development areas, he will be adding nil to nil, and the equation, by my arithmetic, will still be nil?

Mr. Peter Thomas: That is an interesting observation, because the special development area has a considerable differential and attraction to industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not as if industry is moving into other places and not going into the development areas. When there is—as one has every expectation that there will be—an upsurge in investment, then the special development areas should benefit greatly

Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State in answer to Questions this afternoon has four times said "as soon as possible". Will he please tell us when he expects to be able to help Cwmbran in its grievous difficulties?

Mr. Peter Thomas: All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that a decision will be taken as soon as possible.

Secondary Schools

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many secondary schools for children aged 11 to 16 years will be functioning in Wales when the school-leaving age is raised.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is expected that there will be 101 maintained secondary schools, for pupils aged 11–16, in Wales in September, 1972.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, but does he agree that when the school-leaving age

is raised, these schools might face special problems in having no sixth form available for pupils and in the provision of a counselling service? Will he consider consulting local education authorities on the provision of additional resources to meet this important commitment?

Mr. Thomas: The local education authorities and voluntary bodies concerned are well aware of the problem. It is a matter for them. If they think that additional help is necessary, I have no doubt that they will get in touch with me, and I shall certainly have sympathetic regard to what they say.

Redundancies (Wrexham)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to alleviate the situation in the Wrexham constituency where nearly 400 redundancies were declared from two factories immediately after the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The full range of development area assistance is already available and I am confident that Wrexham will continue to attract new investment.

Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the last election I was assuring the electorate of Wrexham, with good reason and with some pride, that Wrexham, which is in the Welsh development area, was rapidly reaching a state of economic self-sufficiency; but that now, for no good reason except the policies of the Government, I am obliged to tell my constituents that the position at Wrexham is bleaker than it has been for many years? When does he expect the steps to which he has referred to take effect?

Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, since June, 1970, industrial building amounting to 700,000 square feet has been approved in the Wrexham area. I well appreciate the anxieties in the area when the 400 redundancies were declared, but I am happy to say that other firms in the area are now recruiting labour.

Bedwas and Machen U.D.C. (Housing Finance)

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what correspondence he has received from Bedwas and Machen


Urban District Council concerning the Housing Finance Bill; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Clerk of the Urban District Council has informed us that the council has resolved not to implement certain provisions of the Housing Finance Bill when these become law. The letter is being acknowledged.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Minister of State recognise that the silly Housing Finance Bill has induced otherwise law-abiding and reasonable citizens on the Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council to contemplate ignoring the law? Will he not reconsider the wisdom of trying to enact such legislation when democratically elected representatives in touch with council house tenants in the area talk of the Bill as complete nonsense and a farce and will not be bullied into operating it?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not think that I should comment on what is clearly intended as a party political gesture at a time when the Housing Finance Bill is still under discussion.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. Friend condemn in the strongest possible terms any repeated attempts of hon. Members opposite to encourage local authorities to flout the law of the land?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That will be a matter for them.

Unemployment

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the organisations he has met in Wales since June, 1970, with direct involvement in the unemployment situation.

Mr. Peter Thomas: A large number of organisations I meet have some involvement in the economic situation and related issues of employment and unemployment. It would be impracticable to list them all.

Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that both the trade unions and the C.B.I. have strongly condemned the Government policy of abandoning investment grants? Will he explain how long the "at a stroke" referred to by the Prime Minister in June, 1970, is intended to take?

Mr. Thomas: Both the C.B.I. and T.U.C. in Wales, who have met me on several occasions, have put forward suggestions, many of which have been carried into effect by the Government. I am looking forward to future meetings with them. I am meeting the T.U.C. on 11th February and representatives of the Welsh Council two days before that.

Poisons (Illegal Dumping)

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what investigations of illegal dumping of poisons on tips in Wales he has undertaken; and what evidence of such practices has come to light.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The investigation of illegal tipping of any type of material is primarily the responsibility of the local planning authority. The Government are not satisfied with the present arrangements and urgent consideration is being given to proposals for a new authorisation procedure.

Mr. John: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tipping, whether legal or illegal, of toxic waste on two quarries in my constituency controlled by Purle Brothers has created pollution sufficient to cause the death of cattle? Does he not agree that that is a serious and urgent matter for investigation? Will he undertake, on behalf of the Government, early legislation to halt the tipping of toxic waste and in the meantime issue a guide line from the Welsh Office to local authorities to control this grave menace to the Welsh countryside?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: As I said in my answer to the original Question, the Government are giving urgent consideration to new authorisation procedures. Welsh Office officials gave advice to the local planning authority in August, 1970, on the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, following which Glamorgan County Council secured the agreement of the contractors involved that tipping at the sites would stop.

Industrialisation

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent he has estimated the future industrialisation needs of Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The need to expand the industrial base of Wales is self-evident

Mr. McBride: That answer is a spit in the face to the people of Wales. Is the Secretary of State aware that the short-term industrial needs of Wales require an intensive boost in terms of the attraction of industry to Wales to absorb 56,000 jobless? Is he further aware that we on this side of the House, and the people of Wales, look to him to put this matter before the Cabinet at long last, and that we want his assurance that he will do so? Lastly, could I emphasise the seriousness of the situation in Wales by saying that in the great city of Swansea six people are chasing every vacancy? What a commentary on his Government's policy!

Mr. Thomas: The Question asks me to estimate the future industrialisation needs of Wales. I did not intend my answer in any way to be a spit in the face, as the hon. Gentleman described it, to anybody. A forecasting exercise is unnecessary since there is no doubt that the need for new industry in Wales will continue for a long time to come.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: If the Secretary of State is confident that growth in Wales is imminent as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement some months ago, will he now announce the erection of some advance factories in areas of high unemployment in Wales, such as my own, which is badly in need of industrial expansion? If he has all this confidence which he has implied today, why does he not do something about it?

Mr. Thomas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have made many announcements about advance factories in Wales —[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—I made an announcement about advance factories last year. The question of advance factories is, strictly, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Hospital Accommodation (South-East Glamorgan)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent he will make special arrangements, in cases in-

volving the need for long or fairly long periods of treatment in hospital, for patients resident at Barry, Rhoose, Sully, Dinas Powis, and Wenvoe, or in adjoining areas of South-East Glamorgan, to ensure that such patients may be in hospitals reasonably near their homes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: In planning the services for these areas, the Welsh Hospital Board is taking full account of the principle that long-stay patients should be in hospitals as near as possible to their homes.

Mr. Gower: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that the concentration of surgery for consultants in district general hospitals, such as the new university hospital at the Heath, Cardiff, has created new social problems, particularly for relatives and next-of-kin, and will he persuade or influence the Welsh Hospital Board to reappraise the whole situation?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Discussions on this very matter are continuing at the moment between officers of the Welsh Hospital Board and the local general practitioners.

Road Accidents (Flintshire)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were killed and injured in road accidents in Flintshire during the year 1971.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Forty-three persons were killed and 1,290 were injured.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this tragic total is a further incentive to press on with the improvement of the two new main east-west roads through Flintshire which are primarily responsible for this appalling tragedy?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I agree that all figures related to road accidents are tragic. There was a slight decrease in total casualties compared with 1970, but there was a slight increase in fatalities. In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I am pressing ahead with plans to provide more dual carriageways in Flintshire, particularly on the A55, where schemes covering a further 16 miles are being prepared.

European Economic Community

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now request the Welsh Council to make a further more detailed and more comprehensive study of the likely effects of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community upon Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: No

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State not accept that he has left the House with an impression he has not assiduously examined the likely effect on Wales of entry into the E.E.C. and that he is emulating the three wise monkeys in not hearing, speaking or indeed even thinking any evil of the E.E.C.?

Mr. Thomas: I have assiduously examined the facts, as did the Welsh Council. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Report of the Welsh Council was an extremely well-documented and valuable assessment of the effects of entry on Wales.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Monmouthshire, the area which could have been presumed to benefit most from entry into the E.E.C., 4,000 jobs have been lost in the last 14 months? Does he not agree that if the Government keep this up, we in Wales truly will go naked into Europe and that that will be the Government's fault?

Mr. Thomas: I hope that the industrialists in Monmouthshire will appreciate that our entry into Europe will mean a very much wider market for their products.

Local Government Reorganisation (Glamorgan)

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have now supported his proposals to divide Glamorgan into three new counties; and how many local authorities now oppose them.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Four local authorities, all in South Wales, have so far indicated support for the division into three counties. Thirty-nine local authorities, including two in North Wales, have told me that they oppose the provisions for

Glamorgan in the Local Government Bill. Two of these, however, suggest a different three-way division.

Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State not recall that during the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill he informed the House that some 40 local authorities supported his recommendation for South-East Glamorgan, and does he not agree that obviously this is just not true, as many of us said at the time? Will he now take into consideration the wise advice that is being given to him by the local authorities in that area and revert to a two-county set-up in the County of Glamorgan?

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is difficult for me to take the advice of local authorities. Of the 39 local authorities which I mentioned in my answer, one-third are parish councils, and we must remember that the total number of local authorities in Wales is 1,076. The 39 authorities who have told me that they oppose my provisions must be compared with the 47 who supported the Cardiff Action Committee at the time of my Consultative Document.

Mr. George Thomas: But surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not wish further to mislead the House—as he has misled us about the 40-odd authorities who supported his proposals about Glamorgan. Will he take into account the fact that there is now a massive feeling of resentment against his proposals, which will destroy effective local government in Glamorganshire? Will he look again at the situation before these matters are reached in the Standing Committee?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The matter is at the moment being considered in the Standing Committee, and this is not the time for me to say anything about it. It will be debated there. As for the figures, all I can say is that 47 local authorities supported the Cardiff Action Committee at the time of my Consultative Document.

Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State said that 47 authorities supported him. He led the House to believe that he had been in touch with these authorities, whereas it has since been revealed that he took all his evidence from the biased Cardiff Action Committee and


had not even investigated whether the figures he gave to the House were right at the time he gave them.

Mr. Peter Thomas: If I saw that certain local authorities had supported the Cardiff Action Committee, I was entitled to infer from that fact that they were opposed to my proposals in the Consultative Document. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I gained little support from him or from his hon. Friends, and indeed from local authorities generally, for my proposals in regard to Glamorgan in the Consultative Document. They are now trying to say that they wish to support my original proposals. At the time of the Consultative Document, they opposed them.

Schools Closure (Coal Mining Dispute)

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to ensure that schools in Wales will remain open, in view of the strike in the coal mining industry.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is the responsibility of the local education authorities to ensure that all possible steps are taken to keep their schools open.

Mr. Probert: Is the Secretary of State aware that he also has a direct responsibility in this matter and that at present some 50,000 Welsh school children, many of whom shortly face important examinations, are being deprived of their education because of the Government's stubborn refusal to grant a fair and just wage to the miners? Is he further aware that he would do a great service to the people of Wales if he were at this moment to advise his right hon. Friend to instruct Derek Ezra promptly to call a meeting with the miners and put before them a much-improved offer, in order to alleviate the suffering of old-age pensioners and sick people in my constituency and in South Wales as a whole?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be in the interests of all if this unhappy strike could be settled. I agree that many people are suffering and will suffer in the future. I am satisfied that local education authorities are doing all that they can to keep schools open. When schools

are forced to close, special arrangements are generally made to assist children with their studies.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the rising anger in the country about the continuance of the coal strike and the compete failure of the Government to take any action to try to bring it to an end, will not the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Wales, recognise that he has special responsibilities on this matter to make representations to the Government, especially to the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has made any special representations on this matter or whether he intends to do so this week?

Mr. Thomas: I am fully aware of my interest in this matter—and it is a real interest. But the hon. Gentleman's question is somewhat wide of the original Question, which asked what I intended to do to ensure that schools in Wales remained open.

SOLICITORS (DISCIPLINARY CODE)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to control the disciplinary code for solicitors.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): No, Sir. The discipline of solicitors is already controlled by the Solicitors Acts and rules made there under.

Mr. Lewis: Why are solicitors allowed to be treated differently from ordinary industrial workers? Ordinary industrial workers also have their code, but they have, contrary to the will of the people, been legislated against. Why should solicitors be a law unto themselves?

The Attorney-General: The answer must be that this House has made provisions under the Solicitors Act, and there are rules of practice of conduct under the Solicitors Practice Rules set up by this House. There are also general rules of professional conduct under a disciplinary committee appointed by the Master of the Rolls established by Section 46 of the Solicitors Act, 1957.

MR. BEVERLEY NICHOLS

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the prima facie evidence submitted to him of the self-confession of Mr. Beverley Nichols that on three occasions he attempted to murder his father, he will initiate proceedings against Mr. Beverley Nichols for this admitted offence.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Lewis: I knew what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer was before he read it. Can he give any good reason why someone who happens to be a well-known figure and rather well off appears to be able to get away with offences, whereas the ordinary working-class woman who is seen to steal a bottle of milk, or who confesses to it, is sentenced to imprisonment without question? Surely in a case like this some action could be taken, if only to deter others?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman referred me to what he said was evidence. The evidence that I received from him was a newspaper article—

Mr. Lewis: Self-confession.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that it is in the public interest that I should ask the police and the Director to consider whether, 57 years ago, a certain gentleman put aspirins in his father's broth or even whether, 42 years ago, the same gentleman launched a garden roller at his father with intent to kill.

STUDENTS (JURY SERVICE)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to ensure that students who suffer loss of vacation earnings as a result of being called for jury service receive appropriate financial compensation.

The Attorney-General: A student who has taken up temporary employment during the vacation and who suffers a loss of earnings as a result of being called for jury service is entitled to financial compensation in the same way as any other employed person who suffers actual loss of earnings.

Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this decision is not being applied in all cases and that, according to the details of a case that I have sent the Government, a student was deprived of these earnings? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure in future that these decisions are taken on the basis that those people who do their public duty are encouraged to do so and not penalised for doing so?

The Attorney-General: It is a question of loss of earnings which has been necessarily suffered or expenses which have been necessarily incurred. With regard to the general point raised by the hon. Gentleman, arrangements are being made that the Crown Courts should be advised that, where applications are made by students on the ground of financial hardship that they should be excused, such applications should be considered sympathetically.

Sir Elwyn Jones: If the student referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) were able to establish his claim and were now to make it, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a sympathetic view?

The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Attorney-General if he will submit proposals to extend Land Registration to the whole of England and Wales.

The Attorney-General: Extension of compulsory registration of title to land to the whole of England and Wales remains the policy of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Further extensions of that system will be made as soon as circumstances permit. It would be impracticable to extend it to all outstanding areas in one operation.

Mr. Loughlin: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when circumstances will permit? Is he aware that the Land Registration Act, 1925, will have been on the Statute Book almost 50 years in a matter of three years? In view of the distinct advantages, especially to people purchasing their own houses, when there will be a saving of a third of


the conveyancing costs, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman speed up the process a little?

The Attorney-General: The plan to extend compulsory registration to all the built-up areas was begun in 1964. In 1968 it was delayed or held back. But between 1968 and 1972 there has been added almost a further million properties, so that now two out of every five are subject to registration. I appreciate the importance of this issue. One of the problems is the updating of the Ordnance Survey, which also regulates the pace.

FORENSIC PROCEEDINGS (LEGAL AID)

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Attorney-General if he will institute a review of all proceedings of a forensic character, whether taking place in courts, tribunals, arbitrations or inquiries, where there is at present no entitlement to legal aid, and consider the propriety of the extension of legal aid in the light of the results thereof.

The Attorney-General: Priority must be given to the scheme for the better provision of legal advice and assistance for which legislation will be introduced this Session. When that scheme is in operation and the research now proceeding into the need for assistance before tribunals has made more progress, the need for a further extension of the scheme can be considered.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he bear in mind that there is a growing feeling among wide sections of the public that a somewhat unsatisfactory position obtains here in that large sums of the taxpayers' money are paid to people charged with and not infrequently found guilty of criminal offences, whereas no aid is available to the citizen whose property is affected, for example, by public improvements and compulsory purchase orders and his need to appear in respect thereof? Will my right hon. and learned Friend further have regard to the position of the preservation and amenity societies which are motivated solely by a desire to put forward matters in what they concede to be the public interest and, in the absence of aid, find themselves inhibited from doing so?

The Attorney-General: I shall bear in mind the important points to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred. The only comment that I make is that, in the matter of legal aid in criminal cases, it has been decided and generally welcomed that there should be legal aid widely available to those persons who stand in such jeopardy. But I shall hear in mind my right hon. and learned Friend's comments.

Sir Elwyn Jones: When will the scheme for legal advice and assistance be introduced? It was promised in the Queen's Speech. Why has there been this delay in introducing it?

The Attorney-General: It is in the programme and it will be brought before the House shortly.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the case in Watford of Mr. Feiler, who was dismissed from a hospital by the management committee and who appealed to the regional board? His appeal was allowed, but he has crippling legal expenses to meet which he cannot afford. What can be done about such a case?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I do not know about the case of Mr. Feiler in Watford. However, if the hon. Gentleman sends me particulars, I will have them looked into.

GROUND RENTS

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish ground rents.

The Attorney-General: This subject is under consideration by the Law Commission, and any decision as to legislation must await its report.

Mr. Davidson: I am grateful for that reply. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the system which is prevalent in Lancashire whereby one person is obliged to collect ground rents from his neighbours without any reward is grossly unfair? In view of the Law Commission's criticisms of it, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he expects legislation to deal with it to come before the House?

The Attorney-General: This is a controversial and complex matter. The Law Commission's working papers made provisional conclusions. The final report is now being prepared and is expected in 1972.

DEVON AND SOMERSET STAGHOUNDS

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether, having considered the evidence submitted by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Brixton, he has now decided to institute criminal proceedings against an official of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds who shot a stag on Porlock beach last October after it had been rescued from the sea.

The Attorney-General: I have decided that criminal proceedings should not be instituted.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I sent him all the evidence required to sustain a successful prosecution as long ago as 7th December? How much longer are these bloodthirsty louts to be allowed to pursue their filthy activities?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman sent me certain correspondence. First, consideration was given to whether there was any evidence of an offence under Section 3 of the Deer Act, but there was no evidence that a shotgun was an unauthorised weapon. Secondly, consideration was given to whether there was an offence under Section 19 of the Firearms Act, 1968. There was no evidence that it was unreasonable to shoot the stag which, according to reports, was either wounded or in danger of drowning.

PAKISTAN

Mr. Healey (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on President Bhutto's announcement that Pakistan is withdrawing from the Commonwealth.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I have read the statement issued by the Pakistan Government

on 30th January that they have ended Pakistan's Commonwealth membership. The statement suggests that the reason for this action is the decision of Australia and New Zealand to announce recognition of Bangladesh today and the intention of the United Kingdom to recognise Bangladesh shortly. I greatly regret this decision. It was, of course, for Pakistan to take for itself. Commonwealth membership is not a matter between Britain and individual members.
I told the House on 18th January that I would make a statement soon on the recognition of Bangladesh. I believe that our criteria for recognition are fulfilled so as to enable us to recognise Bangladesh in the very near future. This decision is in no way hostile to Pakistan, but we have to face the facts. The need now is to reconcile the parties and to try to bring about harmonious relations in the sub-continent.

Mr. Healey: First, I should like to say that we on this side of the House fully share the Foreign Secretary's regret at President Bhutto's announcement. We hope that it is not regarded there as irreversible. If the Pakistan Government should change their mind on the matter, all of us in Britain would welcome their decision so to do.
I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary four questions on the implications of President Bhutto's decision.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the effect on the legal status of Pakistani immigrants already in this country and on the freedom of Pakistanis to come to this country in future?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this decision will have any effect on British aid programmes to Pakistan?
Thirdly, has the right hon. Gentleman had any indication of President Bhutto's policy towards Pakistan's membership of the Central Treaty Organisation and the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation?
Finally, now that we are already paying the price for recognition of Bangladesh, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will recognise Bangladesh forthwith?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the Pakistan Government's decision is not irreversible.
I hope that there will be no need to disturb the legal status of Pakistanis in this country. I should like to examine all the implications and perhaps report back to the House. There are, for example, difficulties concerning naturalisation, people here on work permits, and so on. I should like to examine what can be done.
I see no reason why this decision should affect our aid programme. There is a need for development aid in both West Pakistan and East Pakistan. I think that we shall treat these matters as we have treated them before.
Concerning CENTO and S.E.A.T.O., Pakistan has not taken an active part in S.E.A.T.O. for some time, but it is still an active member of CENTO, and I hope that this will continue.
I should add that President Bhutto has asked me whether I will look in on him at Islamabad for discussions during my visit to India. I have accepted his invitation.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the legislation passed in 1961 and 1962—the Prime Minister certainly will, since he personally was involved in it—regularising the situation regarding the work and citizenship of South Africans in this country when the Union of South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth? Will he undertake to look at that legislation, as there is a parallel situation here, to see whether similar legislation can be introduced to protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who have made their homes in this country and do not wish to be regarded as foreigners here?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the last part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question and tell the House whether we shall now recognise Bangladesh forthwith?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that the criteria are met. We have been in consultation with President Bhutto, who has asked for a little more time. I explained to him that our criteria are met. Therefore, I hope that within a very short time both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Mr. Ford: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that those of us who represent large numbers of Pakistani constituents welcome his statement on their legal status? Will he join us in asking those constituents to remain calm until such time as he has had an opportunity to study the situation and make a definitive statement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that in all circumstances the Pakistani population will remain calm. Certainly the hon. Gentleman may tell them to keep calm, because we shall look at the position with every sympathy for those who are in this country.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what degree of recognition is necessary to achieve a seat at the United Nations for Bangladesh?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This matter does not depend particularly on British recognition. It will be a matter for the United Nations to decide when there has been recognition by sufficient countries to justify United Nations membership.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The House will have heard with deep anxiety that a number of people were killed and injured in the course of disturbances in Londonderry yesterday.
A march was organised in deliberate defiance of the legal order banning marches. The G.O.C. Northern Ireland has reported that at an appropriate point this march was stopped by the security forces and that those who were under the control of the organisers turned back. A large number of trouble-makers refused to accept the instructions of the march stewards and attacked the Army with stones, bottles, steel bars and canisters of C.S. The Army met this assault with two water cannon, C.S., and rubber bullets only. The G.O.C. has further reported that when the Army advanced to make arrests among the trouble-makers they came under fire from a block of flats and other quarters. At this stage the members of the orderly, although illegal, march were no longer in the near vicinity. The Army returned the fire directed at


them with aimed shots and inflicted a number of casualties on those who were attacking them with firearms and with bombs.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: At the end of the statement, please. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to finish his statement.

Miss Devlin: Is it in order for the Minister to lie to this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order

Mr. Maudling: In view of the statements that have been made which publicly dispute this account, the Government have decided that it is right to set up an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the march and the incidents leading up to the casualties which resulted. We are urgently considering the most appropriate form and membership of such an inquiry and I will make a further statement to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday saw yet another tragic day for Ireland that will prove far more traumatic than was internment? May I express our sympathy with all the families of all the victims killed and injured, civilian and military, as a result of yesterday's events, and with the family of the soldier who died yesterday as a result of earlier events.
We welcome the inquiry, but it must be impartial, and it must be entirely judicial, to investigate what happened. Where did the fire come from? At the bar of world opinion it is important to know the facts. Without them there will be no progress in the talks. And, unlike with some of the other inquiries, there must be speed.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we need also to know how it happened in the context of Government policy, as opposed to the events of yesterday? Was the decision to go into the Bogside a reaction to events, or was it the planned disposition of security forces? Who decided this? Was it the decision of the Joint Security Council? If so, was it with the full knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government?
I am aware that question and answer are not enough for this important topic, and I give notice that, at the proper time, I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 and move a Motion that we should debate the situation in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.

Mr. Maudling: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the inquiry should be impartial, judicial and should proceed with speed. The Army was acting under normal instructions, which is to deal with breaches of the law, to apprehend lawbreakers, and to do both with the minimum necessary force.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend, in the inquiry, go a little further than the mere military incident yesterday? It seems vital that the House and the country should know how the decision was taken and who approved the necessary action, whether it was approved here, or reviewed here, because quite clearly this enormous body of people probably could not be held by the forces available to the commander-in-chief.

Mr. Maudling: Certainly the inquiry will look into the circumstances in which the illegal march took place, and what happened thereafter.

Mr. Delargy: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the war in Ulster has lasted longer than the Black and Tan war, of odious memory, and that the paratroopers will be remembered for just as long now with the same odium?—[Interruption.] What I am stating is a fact. They will be so remembered.
It was reported in the Press here last week that other military commanders, other British officers, including brigadiers, had said that the paratroopers should be removed from Ulster. What notice was paid by the Government to the advice of those British military commanders?

Mr. Maudling: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the paratroops, and the reports in the newspapers were denied.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While sharing the anguish which the whole House feels about the events of yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend to be cautious in accepting the numbers of those taking part in the march which have been put


forward by newspapers, and elsewhere? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the inquiry he proposes will have powers which are wide enough to enable it to look into the reason why the ban on marches was defied, and who the organisers were? Will my right hon. Friend also make sure that the inquiry is conducted with speed, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked, and that every facility is provided for those Scottish policemen who were witnesses to the incidents of yesterday, and in a position to see what happened, to give evidence at such an inquiry?

Mr. Maudling: The inquiry will be as thorough and as speedy as possible, and should cover all the circumstances in which the march took place and what happened as a result thereafter.

Mr. Fitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that people in Northern Ireland will not accept the findings of any inquiry which is set up under the auspices of a Tory Government? The only inquiry they will accept is one set up under international auspices such as the United Nations. If the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister are so confident of the rectitude of the operations of British troops yesterday, why should they take steps to forestall such an impartial inquiry?
Will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary also take it from me that the sooner the paratroops are withdrawn from Northern Ireland the better? No one wants to see any more fatalities, but if the regiment continues to remain in Northern Ireland there will be fatalities.
The sooner steps are taken to suspend the Stormont Government and to withdraw all British troops from Northern Ireland the better it will be for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maudling: The Government intend this inquiry to be impartial. We do not intend to hand over our responsibility for any part of the United Kingdom to an international body.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst I fully understand the reasons why the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to set up

this inquiry, and whilst I hope that the inquiry will take place as soon as possible, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that there are some of us who, bearing in mind the record of the Parachute Regiment, or that of any other British regiment, have every faith in Her Majesty's troops?

Mr. Maudling: I share my hon. Friend's respect for the British Army, the Army of the United Kingdom, which is doing a job which it did not seek but which was imposed upon it in the interests of law and order in the most intolerable circumstances.

Mr. Stallard: I should like to add my sympathies to those which have been offered to the relatives of the 15 people of Derry, including an 8 year-old child and a teenage girl, who were killed yesterday in the incidents in the city.
Would the right hon. Gentleman now accept that the British Army is being used to implement the repressive measures of Stormont against the minority population, and that this has resulted in the alienation of thousands of Catholics, both in the Six Counties and further afield? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that minority will never ever be defeated by this kind of repression? How many more times have we to say that? How many more times have we to say, "We told you so"? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the withdrawal of British troops from these Catholic areas into some kind of neutral zone?
Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the ending of internment, the suspension of Stormont, the bringing back here of all security forces and the setting up of a commission immediately in the Six Counties to rule that province pending a permanent political solution?

Mr. Maudling: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the rôle of the Army. The Army was there yesterday to assist the civil power in enforcing the law against a deliberate attempt to break the law. That is our duty, and when people fire on troops, when people attack soldiers with bullets and bombs, they must expect retaliation.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is the second time the


Minister has stood up and lied to the House. Nobody shot at the paratroops, but somebody will shortly

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Biffen: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement by Mr. Lynch that the behaviour of British troops was savagely inhuman? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a deplorable remark, most of all as it comes from the Prime Minister of a State which purports to be friendly and to which we extend unique privileges in respect of nationality and trade?

Mr. Maudling: I think that that statement was both inaccurate and unfortunate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We appear to be getting—[Interruption.]—I was about to remind the House that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) had given me notice of his intention to move for a debate under Standing Order No. 9

Mr. Harold Wilson: Even on the assumption, Mr. Speaker, that you may grant an application under Standing Order No. 9—we do not yet know—this House is far from satisfied on this matter. It is important that, in a debate on Standing Order No. 9, we get a rather deeper analysis of the problems than has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. May I put one or two questions, and could not the same apply to any other hon. Member whom you want to call? First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his announcement of an inquiry on the grounds that serious allegations have been made—including a number by impartial, or, so far as we can tell, impartial, observers—and in view of the fact that the inquiry has been demanded by Cardinal Conway, whose record in condemning violence is known to all hon. Members?
On the other hand, we have had the categorical statements of the Commander, Land Forces, to the effect that no shots were fired until sniping began, and that shots were fired only at snipers. In view of all this, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will support the announcement of an inquiry, and that, as he has

now agreed, it should be speedy, independent and judicial? Could I therefore press upon the right hon. Gentleman that it must be held in public?
Second, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even so, however speedy, consistent with a fair report, it may be, the Northern Irish situation will not wait for an inquiry? We have not had the Scar-man Report yet to deal with events from 1969. Will the right hon. Gentleman, between now and tomorrow, address himself to proposals put from this Box nine-and-a-half weeks about the transfer of the responsibility for security from the Northern Ireland Government to Her Majesty's Government—from the Stormont Parliament to this House?
Third, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, while the House is deeply preoccupied today, as it must be, with the tragedy and with the loss of life and the feelings of the relatives of those who were wounded—including the soldiers who have been wounded in this incident and in others—there will be no answer to this on a basis purely of a military answer; that there has to be a political solution? While I will stand in my corner with the Prime Minister on the fact that it is now nine weeks since the Government accepted my proposal for all-party talks—I accept my responsibility for the delays together with the right hon. Gentleman—will he recognise that we can now wait no longer, that there must be all-party talks in this House leading to talks with the Stormont Parliament and then with the Parliament in Dublin?

Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the inquiry, and agrees that it should be independent, judicial and speedy. I see his point about the delays which have taken place on previous occasions—the Scarman inquiry, for example, has taken a very long time. So we must get the form right. I will tell the House what we have decided on—[HON. MEMBERS: "In public."] There are difficulties with all these inquiries—for example, the security of individual witnesses. Even under the 1921 Act, there is provision for certain parts of the inquiry to be held in camera. These are important matters to consider.
On the second point, that of transferring security, I do not think that this is


relevant. What is in question here are the actions of the British Army, for which this Government accept full responsibility—

Mr. Harold Wilson: No.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman says, "No"; I say, "Yes".
On the third point, the political solution, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we entirely agree with him on the importance of finding a political solution. Heaven alone knows, yesterday's events should add weight to the importance of finding a political solution.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government and this House accept responsibility for the Army. That is true, but the Army was put in, by a decision, I agree, of the previous Government, in a security rôle in Northern Ireland. We have now reached the point where this House can no longer carry the can for that security rôle unless we take the political decisions on security. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am opposed to those who want to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland, but there is no reason why we should carry responsibility here unless we carry responsibility and control of the political decision under which they operate.

Mr. Maudling: I still think that I was right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in regarding that as relevant to yesterday's occurrencies. What happened yesterday was that the Army was supporting the civil power in maintaining the ban on political processions from any quarter and of any kind in Northern Ireland, which both sides of the House thoroughly support.

Mr. Goodhart: As one who is proud to have served in the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remind the House that one member of this much-maligned regiment was recently awarded the George Cross posthumously for protecting the lives of Irish children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is it not a fact that the Parachute Regiment has been commended publicly for the restraint that it has shown in the past in dealing with difficult crowd situations in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the services rendered by this unit, as by other units of the Briitsh Army, are very great indeed.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is an appalling thought that a pitched battle reminiscent of wartime conditions took place in the United Kingdom yesterday? We therefore welcome this inquiry. But would he not agree that, if it is to be thorough, it is equally important that its findings should be generally accepted? Will he therefore not turn his mind, as I think he did earlier, from the possibility of a very distinguished international statesman, of the calibre, say, of Mr. Lester Pearson, which would in no way—[Interruption.] I believe that is the sort of name which commends itself to those members of the party opposite who have had experience of office.
Second, since the tension in Northern Ireland at the moment is very near a condition of civil war, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the security forces, in carrying out an almost impossible job, have adequate political advice available to them before they take security decisions?

Mr. Maudling: On the first point, while I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, it would be a sad day for this country if we had to admit that we could not find anyone within our own boundaries capable of carrying out this task. On the second point, I am satisfied that the political advice available to the Army in carrying out their duties is entirely adequate.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made an intimation to the House, which was very nearly a hint, that I was waiting for the application of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) to move for a debate under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. McManus: On a point of order. It is a fact that a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was the subject of a murderous attempt on her life yesterday on a platform at Derry and that she has not been allowed to speak in this short exchange.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised two points of order. I must remain in control of the proceedings.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. I am the only person in this House who was present yesterday when, whatever the facts of the situation might be said —[Interruption.] Shut up! I have a right, as the only representative in this House who was an eye witness, to ask a question of that murdering hypocrite—

Hon. Members: Order!

Miss Devlin: I will ask him a question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has no such right. She has that right only if she is called on by me.

Miss Devlin: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known to many hon. Members who received direct eye-witness reports from Derry yesterday that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) with my noble Friend and others on that platform were forced to prostrate themselves while a hail of bullets was fired in their direction and that you, Mr. Speaker, refused to call one of those people who were present—

Hon. Members: Shame!

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although there can be no excuse for the conduct of the hon. Lady just now, which is most reprehensible, is it not right that that was provoked by a murderous attempt on her and by your attempt to silence her?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has no right to challenge my decision. What I was about to say to the hon. Lady was that the place for her to give her account of what happened is the inquiry. That is where she should rightly make her statement.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the situation this afternoon has been heightened by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) not being allowed to put her point of view whether the House agrees with it or not. She is the elected Member for Mid-Ulster. She was present at the demonstration. Surely it would have been in the interests of

democracy for the hon. Lady to have been heard.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Lady twice to points of order. I was about to point out to her that the proper place for her to give her evidence was not to the House but to the committee of inquiry.

Mr. Tom Boardman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. What is the position of an hon. Member who, having taken the oath, incites others to break the law?

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Tom Boardman: I refer in particular to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who must bear a very heavy responsibility for yesterday's tragic events.

Mr. Speaker: Any such matters must be raised on a substantive Motion.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the remark made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) was thoroughly out of order. Surely it is entirely out of order to make such an accusation against an hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: Such an accusation must be made on a substantive Motion.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you give an assurance to the House that the normal three-hour debate tomorrow will be extended—when it is accepted—because there are many of us here, both Englishmen and Protestants—I am one of them—who feel a great sense of shame at what happened yesterday in Northern Ireland. I am not speaking as a Catholic—

Mr. Speaker: Order

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is on a hypothetical point. It is not yet known whether there will be such a debate tomorrow.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it really in keeping with the practices of the House that an hon. Member who has made a violent attack upon other Members of the House


Should remain seated within the Chamber?

Miss Devlin: I did not shoot him in the back, which is what they did to our people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that hon. Members would leave matters of order to me.

Mr. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to a question I asked a few moments ago, the Home Secretary said that the troops replied with bullets to demonstrators who had fired on the troops. We are entitled to evidence of that reply. The only Member who was present could have given us that evidence if she had been called. I submit that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) should have been called.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of a Minister's answer is not a matter for the Chair.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, I have been in touch with Mr. Smith about arrangements for Members of Parliament to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission. [Interruption.] I have made clear in this House my view that it is wrong for us to transfer our political differences to Rhodesia or for British political parties to propagate their views on the proposals for a settlement in that country while the Test of Acceptability is being conducted. [Interruption.] Nevertheless, the Government accept that this House might wish to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission—

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members on this side are very anxious to listen to what the Foreign Secretary has to say, but we cannot do so because of the noise coming from below the Gangway on the Government benches.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: We on this side have not heard a word. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to be so good as to start again?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With permission, Mr. Speaker, if no one has heard I will start again.
As the House will be aware, I have been in touch with Mr. Smith about arrangements for Members of Parliament to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission. I have made clear in this House my view that it is wrong for us to transfer our political differences to Rhodesia or for British political parties to propagate their views on the proposals for a settlement in that country while the Test of Acceptability is being conducted. Nevertheless, the Government accept that this House might wish to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission, and I have expressed my view that an all-party delegation would be the most appropriate arrangement.
The Labour Party, for its part, has preferred to propose a single-party delegation, representing the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If this could be arranged, it was also prepared to take part in the all-party delegation. At its request, therefore, I forwarded a proposal on its behalf to Mr. Smith. The Liberal Party made a similar request, and I took similar action.
In his reply Mr. Smith has said that he is prepared to receive a limited number of individual M.P.s or groups of M.P.s, provided they go in the capacity of observers of the Pearce Commission's work and not to propagate support for or objection to the terms of the settlement. He has added that he would not be prepared to admit persons who were on record as having aided or encouraged terrorist activities there.
After consulting the right honourable Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the honourable Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I was able to assure Mr. Smith that both the Labour and Liberal Party delegations were ready to undertake that they would not engage in any propaganda while in Rhodesia. I have now received a message from Mr. Smith, and he has made the substance of it
public, declining to admit the Labour and Liberal Party delegations as constituted, on the grounds that some of the proposed Members have encouraged or actively supported terrorist movements in Africa.
I am satisfied that the legitimate purpose of observing on behalf of this House the operation of the Pearce Commission can be satisfactorily fulfilled by an all-party delegation. Indeed a privately-organised bi-party delegation has just been in Rhodesia for this purpose. The all-party delegation can be pursued through the usual channels.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that this side of the House regards it as intolerable that the leader of a rebellion against the Crown who is seeking recognition by the United Kingdom should ban visits to British territory by public figures and Members of this House to observe the way in which one of the conditions for recognition is being fulfilled?
Second, did not Mr. Smith a few days ago agree to accept party delegations provided that they were not proposing to indulge in propaganda—an assurance which had been given some time ago—and did not his public statement in Salisbury, according to the newspapers, cite Labour Party conference resolutions in 1970 and 1971 as a reason for refusing the whole of the Labour Party delegation?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no party conference resolution on Rhodesia in 1970 and that the resolution in 1971 said nothing about terrorism but expressed sentiments which I hope the right hon. Gentleman would share; namely, that
the Parliamentary Labour Party should do all in its power to ensure that sanctions are being vigorously enforced and that no deals which do not recognise the six principles are made with the rebel régime.
In the light of Mr. Smith's statement in Salisbury, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is Mr. Smith's intention to refuse all Labour Members of Parliament, and, indeed, all members of the Labour Party, entry to Rhodesia at this time? Further, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Smith's behaviour on his undertaking to him last Thursday throws an interesting light on other undertakings he is giving in the context of the proposals for a settlement?
What does the Foreign Secretary propose to do about it? Will he let Mr. Smith wipe his feet on him again? Will he recognise that no self-respecting political organisation in the United Kingdom could allow a rebel to dictate the composition and procedure of a body whose purpose was to ensure that British obligations were observed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Mr. Smith's decision regarding the Liberal and Labour Party delegations will make it very difficult, if not impossible—certainly for the Labour Party—to participate in an all-party delegation?
To enable the Labour Party in Parliament to make up its mind on an all-party delegation, will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, has he a firm assurance from Mr. Smith that the Parliamentary Labour Party will be free, through the usual channels, to choose whomsoever it likes as the members of such a delegation, if it decides to participate? Second, will the delegation be free to decide its procedure, its programme and its itinerary in Rhodesia as it wishes, without vetoes and interdictions by the Smith régime?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My desire, obviously, is to try to serve the House in this matter if the House wishes to observe the Pearce Commission in action. My position—I have made no doubt about it—is that I think this ought to be done, if at all, by an all-party delegation. I have no doubt that this could be arranged.
I come now to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He asks whether there is a ban on all Labour politicians. The obvious answer is, "No". The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) has been there, and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who is an opponent of the Smith régime, is there at this moment. So the answer is, "No". But what Mr. Smith has told me is that he is not prepared to have as part of an all-party delegation or as part of a party delegation people who have advocated violence in Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who."] It is not for me to interpret statements made by hon. Members in the past or to interpret resolutions passed by the National Executive of the Labour Party, when, for example, it approved the distribution of moneys in Africa for guerrilla purposes.


It is not for me to judge that. They have done it. Mr. Smith objects to that, and he will not, so I understand, have members of the National Executive who have voted for such a resolution.

Mr. Hastings: Are we not supposed to be concerned with the views on the proposed agreement of the Rhodesian people of all races rather than with the extension of our controversies in this House into Rhodesia? If that be so, would it not be a good deal better if all right hon. and hon. Members stayed here and let the Pearce Commission get on with its work?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Pearce Commission is to interpret opinion of all Rhodesians on the proposed settlement, not to interpret our opinions. But if the House wishes to send a delegation to observe the Pearce Commission I think it reasonable that it should be able to do so; and the obvious way to do this, the way we should have done it in any other case, is by an all-party delegation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to ask a question at this point?

Mr. David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify one or two points on the messages from Mr. Smith? Is it a fact that after he had first given the names of the two delegations Mr. Smith appeared to accept the delegations and then later changed his mind? Second, did the right hon. Gentleman pass on the assurance which I gave on behalf of the Liberal delegation that we would not make propaganda against the settlement while we were in Rhodesia? Third could the Foreign Secretary answer the question already asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about whether the parties are free to choose their representatives, and whether they are free to choose their own representatives on his proposed all-party delegation, without veto by Mr. Smith? Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, with his own particular authority, that terrorist raids across the Border ceased over 200 years ago and there is no intention to start again?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I passed on the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he would not indulge in any propaganda and neither would those he took with him. I cannot, as I say, be responsible for putting any interpretation whatever upon what the hon. Gentleman may have said in the past about Rhodesia, but I did hand on faithfully to Mr. Smith what he said. I repeat that the way to organise this is through an all-party delegation. Of course, if they wish to go separately, the parties can choose their own representatives. I cannot guarantee that all those named would necessarily be accepted in Rhodesia.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with his obsequious attitude to Mr. Smith, will he say, in view of the words he has just used about right hon. and hon. Members making statements which he will not interpret, whether he agrees with Mr. Smith that my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) have, in fact, made statements in relation to Mr. Smith which he is not prepared to defend? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about his proposals for a parliamentary delegation? Will he agree that if there is to be a parliamentary delegation he must be responsible for it, the names from the Conservative side will be nominated by the Prime Minister and from this side by this Front Bench, and that he will allow no censorship by Mr. Smith as to who goes?
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, although he says that he has no responsibility in this matter, he has signed an agreement with Mr. Smith which he is going to excessive lengths to try to promote in this House and in Rhodesia, and will he now tell Mr. Smith that if we cannot decide from this House who visits a country administered by an illegal régime he will tear up the agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not for a moment defend Mr. Smith's decision. I think it is better that Members of Parliament should be able to go to Rhodesia to observe, though I am bound to say that it was the right hon. Gentleman's party which made the complication. I


proposed an all-party delegation, and the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will just keep quiet for a moment, I shall tell him. I proposed an all-party delegation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his right hon. Friends wished to pursue their party delegation as well as the all-party delegation.

Mr. Mellish: Why not?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not believe that it was ever contemplated by a single Member of the House when the right hon. Gentleman or I were talking about the fifth principle that we should fight out our party-political battles on Rhodesian soil. I repeat that I am at the service of the House in this matter, and I want to help if I possibly can. So I shall certainly see whether we can arrange an all-party delegation, though I cannot make myself responsible for interpreting statements made or resolutions passed by the National Executive of the Labour Party.

Sir B. Braine: There is one thing upon which we can all agree on both sides of the House—namely, the desire to achieve a just and fair settlement in Rhodesia—and in order to ascertain whether this is possible, the Pearce Commission must be allowed to carry out its job without fear or favour. That being said, is it not reasonable, traditional and customary for Members of the House, who will have to take the ultimate decision, to wish to support the idea of a parliamentary delegation? Will my right hon. Friend take it that many of us feel that an all-party delegation, selected in the customary manner, may well be the answer, and one which would satisfy both sides of the House?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have complete trust in the Pearce Commission, and I do not know why we should want to observe it at work. But a number of hon. Members have gone, and I have no doubt that a great number more can go if they wish. If the House desires to send an all-party delegation, I shall try to organise it, but certain people have in the past made very violent statements about Rhodesia and Africa, and I cannot guarantee any Member getting in.

Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman does not see any need for

anyone to observe the Pearce Commission, does he see any need for hon. Members to have the same rights as he had when he was on this Front Bench to go and observe other activities and the arrest of leading statesmen in Rhodesia? Is it wrong that hon. Members can go and see that? If the right hon. Gentleman is trying still to advocate an all-party delegation, though he may not have had the last word from Mr. Smith on that, has not he just used words to make it clear that no member of the Labour Party National Executive will be allowed to enter Rhodesia in view of its collective responsibility for statements that the right hon. Gentleman seems unable to construe? In those circumstances, if we are to consider the possibility of an all-party delegation, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that anyone nominated through the usual channels from this side of the House will get into Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is not wrong for Members of Parliament to go to Rhodesia. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich has been there—

Mrs. Renée Short: Answer the question.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman asked his question in his own way, and I shall answer it in mine. He asked me whether it was wrong for Members of Parliament to go to Rhodesia. I have said "No", because patently it is not wrong.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Any Member?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Members for West Bromwich and York are there, and there has been no trouble.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Any Member?

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Shut up.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When the right hon. Gentleman says, sitting down shouting questions at me, as he usually does, "Any Member?", the answer is that neither he nor I in these circumstances can guarantee that any Member can go if that Member has advocated violence, but that is not for me to interpret.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison—

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered any of the questions. Will he now answer the following question? If he is sponsoring an all-party delegation, will he undertake that anyone nominated through the usual channels will be backed by Her Majesty's Government as a representative of this House? If not, will he make it clear to Mr. Smith that this destroys the agreement, because if Mr. Smith behaves like this now how would he behave if he got a settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the proper way to deal with an all-party delegation would be through the usual channels—

Mr. Harold Wilson: That is what I said.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: —and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not sponsor those who have advocated violence. As to destroying the agreement, I do not believe that on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman would repeat what he said about that, because he told me the other day that he wished the Commission to stay in Rhodesia.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman, recalling perhaps that it was Mr. Smith, not my hon. Friends, who shot 15 Rhodesian citizens, has now challenged me as to the names. Since Mr. Smith has rejected my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that if their names were part of a parliamentary delegation he would support and insist on their admission?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, as I understand it. I do not think that Mr. Smith has rejected his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. I have said that my desire is to serve the reasonable requirements of the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has the worst manners I have ever seen of anyone in Parliament. I would certainly say—[Interruption.]—if the right hon. Gentleman will control himself—but, of course,

knowing the right hon. Member for Leeds, East as I do, I accept his assurance, and I told Mr. Smith that he had given me the most absolute assurance that he would do nothing but observe the Commission. Therefore, when he asks whether I will support the names of any Members he gives me, my reply is that I will certainly, of course, represent to Mr. Smith—[An HON. MEMBER: "Stop wriggling."] The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible to insist, but I will do everything I can, as the House would wish.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman does not know whether he is on his belly or his knees. No guts.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the Labour Party is financing terrorist movements operating in Southern Africa, would it not be more tactful for its National Executive, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the whole shooting match to stay at home?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary putting the same misplaced confidence in Mr. Smith in Rhodesia as he did some years ago in Herr Hitler at Munich? Is it not a fact that what Mr. Smith is saying is, "Those people I favour I shall have over, but those I do not favour are taboo"? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Sir Dingle Foot advocated violence in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Smith can be true, because the hon. Member for York is in Rhodesia now.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: What about Dingle Foot?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In the present very difficult situation in Rhodesia, would it not be helpful if both sides of the House used temperate language and avoided, for instance, calling the man de facto responsible for security in Rhodesia a rebel against the Crown?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: What else is he?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: While the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) uses language like that, is it surprising that he finds difficulty in obtaining access to Rhodesia from the man who would be responsible for his safety while he was out there?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There seem to me to be two ways of dealing with the matter; either we can set up an all-party delegation or the different parties can go ahead with their own arrangements. If they want to do that, there is no objection from me. All I have to say is that it may be that some indivividuals will not be accepted.

Mr Thorpe: May I on behalf of the Liberal Party—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The right hon. Gentleman cannot go.

Mr. Thorpe: —remind the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that he accepted the good faith of both the Labour and the Liberal proposed delegations in saying that they would go merely as observers and would not indulge in any political activity? Since I have no possible cause to accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has been actively encouraging or supporting terrorism, which I understand is the unsupported allegation, may I as a matter of good manners give advance notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he would not allow any censorship to be placed upon us from Salisbury in the selection of the all-party delegation, and that our nomination would be my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As long as the right hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot insist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not want to go on insisting on what I said before, but it is true. [Interruption.] In a matter of life or death the right hon. Gentleman had no chance whatever of saving those about to be hanged in Rhodesia.

Mr. Tapsell: While recognising that the complexity of the Rhodesian situation is plain to all and that the statesmanship and restraint with which it has been handled by my right hon. Friend has been generally admired, may I ask whether we must not also in this House have some regard to its dignity? Would it not be wrong to establish the principle that if an all-party delegation were to be chosen in our traditional fashion anyone outside this country should have any control over its membership?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. If there was censorship of an all-party delegation, the all-party delegation obviously could not go.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that Rhodesia is in a state of rebellion and that any right hon. or hon. Member of this House has the right to visit that territory if he or she so wishes? In these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) decides to go to Rhodesia, what protection will Her Majesty's Government afford him?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Members of this House who have in very recent days been to Rhodesia have received, of course, all the facilities that our very limited representation in that country can give them. Everything has been put at their disposal—arrangements for their programmes, and the rest. I cannot insist, however, much as I should like to, because I know that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) is a most harmless fellow.

Mr. Wall: Is not this another illustration of where power actually lies and that, whether we like it or not, legally or illegally Rhodesia has been independent since 1965?

Mr. Michael Stewart: I am sorry to press still further the same point, but it has been very difficult to get a real answer from the Foreign Secretary about the position of an all-party delegation. He is recommending an all-party delegation of the House. But it must be apparent to him—it seems to be from his last answer—that this House could not accept the insult of having its delegation vetoed by Mr. Smith. Before he recommended to the House an all-party delegation, what steps did the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that Mr. Smith would accept such Members as the House thought fit to choose?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was complicated by the fact that a right hon. Gentleman opposite had to tell me that the Opposition could not be members of an all-party delegation unless a Labour Party delegation went as well. That is where the complication began. Mr. Smith has always said that he could


not accept into Rhodesia people who had publicly advocated violence.

Mr. Driberg: Since the right hon. Gentleman has repeated that phrase, would he indicate which Members of this House have publicly advocated violence—have not merely sympathised with the African cause in Rhodesia, but publicly advocated violence and have definitely said it again and again—and will he give the date on which the National Executive of the Labour Party ever passed any such resolution?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir; I cannot. That would be putting me in the position of recalling hon. Members' speeches or interpreting them, and it would be quite improper that I should try to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland as evidenced in the tragic events in Londonderry on 30th January, 1972, and the danger that it will lead to further civilian and military deaths, and the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement.
The situation speaks for itself. The events occur in the United Kingdom. No words of mine are needed to embellish what television shows in our homes and what we see when we visit Northern Ireland. I simply beg to move.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has asked leave—he gave me notice some time ago of his intention—to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland as evidenced in the tragic events in Londonderry on 30th January, 1972, with the danger that it will lead to further civilian and military deaths, and the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement.

These are difficult matters to decide. The decision is for me. I am not allowed to give reasons. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Has the hon. Gentleman leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: If there is no shout of "No", there is no need for anybody to stand up.

The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business Tomorrow.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this point before. I realise that the Standing Order allows only for three hours. In view of the importance of this debate and the fact that there are many hon. Members who are not from Northern Ireland but who feel very strongly about this situation, is it not possible to extend the period of debate? Can this be done through the usual channels, or is there no way in which it could be achieved?

Mr. Speaker: I must rule at once that there is no way in which it could be done. The Standing Order only allows a debate for three hours. The matter is completely out of my hands.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since, when you asked just now whether the Motion had leave of the House, most right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House stood up but very few, if arty, right hon. and hon. Members opposite stood up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I pointed out at once that it was quite unnecessary for anyone to stand up. Unless there is a disputing of the permission, it is quite unnecessary for anyone to stand up.

Mr. Driberg: Perhaps I can finish my question for the benefit of HANSARD, Mr. Speaker. Would you therefore refrain from calling in the debate tomorrow those who are not interested?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of of order and I will certainly pay no attention to it.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise as a matter of breach of privilege the conduct of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in assaulting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to be firm on these matters. I have already called on the Clerk to read the Orders of the day. I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) permission to go on with his submission at this stage.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to move the Opposition Motion, I should tell the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. Members.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the grave damage inflicted on the engineering and shipbuilding industries throughout the United Kingdom by the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have increased unemployment, created uncertainties and held down essential investment.
This debate is one of a series of debates that the House will be having this winter on the subject of unemployment. It began last Monday with the general debate on unemployment following the publication of the figures indicating that 1 million people were out of work. We shall be coming back to further debates on the crisis in Scotland, Wales and development areas generally and the English regions which have also been very badly hit, especially so since the figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry on Thursday last show that there was a big drop in the number of new jobs which have become available in development areas in every part of the United Kingdom.
Today we are concentrating on the engineering, metal and shipbuilding industries which are the key sectors of our economy and which are now the most depressed. Without intending any personal discourtesy to the Secretary of State for Scotland, I hope he will understand when I say that neither he nor his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry are really able to answer the charges that we shall make over the whole range of the Motion covering the aircraft industry as well as machine tools, shipbuilding and other industries. I believe that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ought to have been here today to answer


what is in effect a censure Motion on the policies for which he is the responsible Minister in the Cabinet.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): We understood until this morning that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was to open the debate and that it was to be a specifically Scottish debate as well as dealing with these three industries.

Mr. Benn: I do not know how the usual channels work in notification of speakers. I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman but the Motion covers the whole of the engineering, shipbuilding and metal industries, and, candidly, neither of the Ministers put up today has responsibilities within Government covering the whole of this area. We shall have a Scottish speaker winding up the debate who has special responsibilities for aerospace, but there is no such Government speaker.
The unemployment figures were debated last week, but if we break them down to the industries to which they most apply it will be seen that the biggest proportional rises in unemployment in the past year have been in iron and steel, mechanical engineering—particularly metal working and machine tools —and aerospace equipment, manufacturing and repair. The figures show that from the first quarter of 1970 to the third quarter of 1971 there has been a 6 per cent. drop in engineering employment. It is this that in part explains the extension of unemployment to the West Midlands which was previously thought of as a prosperous area but where male unemployment at 6·7 per cent. is now only marginally below that of the North-West at 6·9 per cent. and nearly twice the South-East figure at 3·4 per cent.
In my own City of Bristol the area manager in publishing the unemployment figures recently had this to say in the accompanying statement:
In engineering, one of the worst sectors, unemployment has more than doubled during the year; what is disturbing in this sector is that the high unemployment level has very little seasonal element in it and cannot be expected to respond to the seasonal factors which in the spring normally cut down the numbers unemployed in construction, catering and some of the holiday trades. There

is no clear sign of improvement in engineering in the sense that any employers are saying, 'We'll soon be wanting more labour from you'.…
What the area manager said in Bristol is of general application throughout the country.
The Sunday Times survey based on a study of forward intentions of a number of major firms came out with the same conclusion about eight days ago when it pointed out that its survey had revealed:
The position in commercial vehicles, agricultural machinery and the capital goods sector, with no sign of an improvement in final deliveries of goods, is even worse, and is resulting in a further steady trickle of redundancies.
We have not had an up-to-the-minute survey of the forecast of future investment during 1972. The last one actually forecast some fall. The only people in this situation still radiating optimism are on the Government Front Bench. The Chancellor in his statement in Leeds last Friday said:
We have the springboard for sustained expansion, and that is the only sure way to reduce unemployment.
Even The Times, not a notorious Labour paper, in its leading article on Saturday queried that statement by the Chancellor when it said:
…'business confidence in the sense of new investment and willingness to create new jobs is unusually low at the moment….
The grounds for pessimism which we are reflecting in our comments and the reason for this debate are very well rooted in facts. In the machine tool industry, very much the core of the engineering industry and a good indicator of the health of the economy, 1971 was the worst year in living memory. Orders fell 43 per cent. in that industry in 1971 and 6,600 skilled men were sacked during the last year. There are a number of plants, such as the Churchill plant, which are subject to threats of closure. There is trouble at Alfred Herbert's, and Asquiths, and these are the problems of the numerically controlled machine tool industry, which, although it is growing, is now affected by the growth of imports of cheap micro-circuits. There is, too, the closure of Witham which was to have been one of the largest micro-circuit factories in the west of Europe, Glenrothes,


and the progressive withdrawal of Plesseys and Mullards from micro-circuits which are needed in that particular side of the numerically controlled machine tool industry.
When along with others I raised this with the Secretary of State, I received from him a reply which is far from reassuring. In his letter to me of 31st December, after I had written to him about my concern for the machine tool industry, he said that he "shares my concern". Then he comes back to the standard Front Bench answer that:
There are signs that the economy is already responding to these reflationary measures.
He adds:
I prefer to leave provision of capital to normal finance sources and I am confident the broad measures introduced by the Chancellor will be instrumental in resolving the problems highlighted by Sir Richard Way's report.
The position is not improving.
I want now to deal specifically with the figures of unemployment and vacancies in engineering and allied trades—notably with draughtsmen and skilled designers—to underline the gravity of the position. If we take the figures in June, 1970, when the Government came into office, there were 31,500 unemployed with 26,000 vacancies, and, therefore, just over one man was looking for every vacancy. In the period from June, 1970, to September, 1971, the number of unemployed had risen from 31,000 to 58,000—it has risen higher since—while the number of vacancies shrank more than 26,000 to 11,000 and it has fallen since. The number of skilled engineering workers for every vacancy, was just under one for one but now more than five skilled people are in search of every vacancy.
If we look at the figures for draughtsmen who are the people who actually design advanced equipment in British industry, in June, 1970, there was more than one vacancy for every unemployed draughtsman. Today there are 11·5 skilled unemployed draughtsmen for every vacancy. There could not be a clearer indication of the weaknesses of the engineering industry than those figures.
Eight weeks ago the "Little Neddy" for the mechanical engineering industry published its report showing no growth

in 1971, and forecasting that output in 1972 would go up by less than 1 per cent., that investment was stagnant and would remain stagnant until the summer of 1972 and that deliveries in 1972 would be noticeably below those of 1971. The comment of the Sunday Times was that it was
A strong warning of continued stagnation in the engineering industry right through to late 1972—in sharp contrast to the optimistic line taken by the Chancellor.
Wherever we look we find this contrast between the facts and expert non-political comment and the continual optimism, if that is the right word for it, of the Government.
If one turns to some of the industries concerned, the position can be seen in clearer focus. There are still serious difficulties about the shipbuilding industry. Despite that, at the end of last year the Government decided to persist with their decision to wind up the Shipbuilding Industry Board. It is true that when the board was set up the idea was that it should do a short, sharp job to promote industrial reorganisation and then come to an end.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West): The right hon. Gentleman has just taken the Government to task for winding up the board. Does he remember that in Committee he resisted an Amendment not to bring it to an end compulsorily?

Mr. Benn: I was reminding the House that the original idea was that the board should be in existence only for a time.

An Hon. Member: What about the Geddes Committee?

Mr. Benn: I am prepared to give the hon. Gentleman full credit, but the Geddes Committee recommended that it would be better if the Shipbuilding Industry Board was created for a period and then terminated in order to try to bring forward investment in the shipbuilding industry. Given the problems which remain in the shipbuilding industry, and given the advice of Sir William Swallow, the very distinguished industrialist who was chairman of the board and who regarded it as highly desirable to provide that the work of the board should be carried forward, it is very unfortunate that the board should have been brought to an end in December, 1971.
Let us consider the Government's handling of particular industries and firms. We have had many opportunities in the last year to debate their handling of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. I do not wish to go over the same ground today, although we shall no doubt have the opportunity to debate it when the Government produce their proposals. It is, however, perfectly clear—and I referred to this last week—that promoting Govan Shipbuilders and the way in which the matter has been handled by the Government will cost far more money than would have been the case if U.C.S. had been allowed to complete its reorganisation under Mr. Ken Douglas.
I was taken to task by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for saying that in the debate last week, but I come today with my evidence. Mr. Douglas, in giving evidence to the S.T.U.C. inquiry, put the cost of starting Govan Shipbuilders at no less than £30 million. Despite the period which has elapsed, the Government have not received the feasibility study giving a clear indication of the future of Scotstoun. I have been in touch with the Minister's office quite regularly on this matter and I have been told that no feasibility study is available.
The Government know very well that in order to preserve employment on the Clyde, and even to get Govan Shipbuilders set up, Clydebank is the key, and it is absolutely essential that the Government should play a more active part in trying to promote a scheme which will bring about the successful take-up of Clydebank. At a meeting this morning, the U.C.S. workers voted to release a ship for launching tomorrow so as to give the Government more time to find a satisfactory solution. But it is no good the Government expecting us to take seriously their protestations about unemployment while they continue to act with such insensitivity.
I turn now to the rôle of workers in the engineering industry who have been confronted with a major crisis affecting their firms and many of whom have been declared redundant with very little notice and thrown on the street. Since last summer we have had the case not only of the U.C.S. shop stewards and the workers who have undoubtedly succeeded in per-

suading the Government to consider the possibility of making Govan Shipbuilders more wide-ranging, but of the workers at Plessey, at Alexandria, who, if Press reports are right, appear to have succeeded in part as a result of their work-in. There are the Fisher-Bendix case in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has played a notable part as the local Member in b ringing the matter to a successful conclusion, the Allis-Chalmers case at Mold, in North Wales, and the pending case of the workers at the Churchill machine tool plant,
Looking back over the evidence of this new industrial phenomenon, there is no doubt that the men involved have behaved in a highly responsible manner in defending their jobs against Government policy as it has affected them. All the emphasis has perhaps been on those aspects which have been called the "occupation", "the work-in" or "the sit-in". Much too little attention has been given to a parallel phenomenon which has emerged and which can be symbolised by the flight of Mr. McGarvey and Mr. Jack Service to Texas to try to get the Clydebank yard taken over, with a "no strike" pledge in their pockets given to them by the workers involved; the workers at Hawker Siddeley who have been to the House regularly recently to safeguard employment in their company; and the very constructive work done by the workers in B.A.C. and other companies who are making concrete proposals to safeguard their position and, moreover, to promote the interests of their industries.
My experience of dealing with many of these groups is that increasingly there is to be found a little man at the back with gold-rimmed spectacles who comes from the management and who supports the shop stewards. One of the most important changes which has occurred in recent years is that workers are crossing the old demarcation lines—even the lines between white collar worker and blue collar worker—and are coming together, not only in a necessary defensive action but to consider the future of their industry, bearing in mind the need for them to be successful in the national interest. When we come to consider an alternative to the odious Industrial Relations Bill we shall have learned a great deal from the responsibility exercised by the workers.
I turn from that general consideration of what has happened in industry to the question of the aircraft industry, where the situation is similar. The Government have made no statement of policy on the aircraft industry since they took office. It is true that, partly no doubt because of the pressure of the Hawker Siddeley workers, the Nimrod order has been announced, but on going into the matter a little more deeply we find that it is an undated contract. There is no provision for the Nimrods to be produced at once. Not only will new employment not be created but not all the Hawker Siddeley jobs involved will be saved.
The Government have the report of the Society of British Aerospace Constructors which calls for a decision on vertical and short take-off aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has referred to this matter in the House. As with the shipbuilding industry, we are waiting for a clear statement from the Government on this question.
The answer which the Government always give when they are pressed on these matters is that our entry to the Common Market will provide us with a market which will justify the increased investment. But, without wishing to be negative, I must warn the Government against the creation of a new mythology —that entry into Europe will solve all our industrial and investment problems. It is simply not true to say that British industry, which makes its decisions on the basis of its feel for the situation, does not recognise that the drop in tariffs which divide us from the Six will work the other way and will greatly increase foreign competition. The common agricultural policy will increase living costs and hence prices, and hence may lead to a further round of wage demands, and industry will be operating not under the department which it knows, the Department of Trade and Industry, but under regulations made under a totally different system and tradition of law in the Common Market. It really makes industry anxious rather than immediately automatically self-confident as we approach the European decision. Indeed, in the one industry which has really, in a sense, been Europeanised for some years, the motor industry, where, for example,

there have been federal companies—Ford of Europe set up in the summer of 1966, General Motors and Chrysler already operating on a European basis—these developments have not necessarily led to increased investment in this country. All the evidence and statistics that we have suggest to us that General Motors has been building more and more on its Opel operations on the Continent. Similarly, Chrysler has been building up in Spain, and Ford has put far more new investment into Cologne than into this country.
I will go further and say that as we approach Europe we should not adopt an ideology about the relations between Government and industry which is not shared by European Governments already within the Common Market. The German Government have enormously subsidised their own advanced industries. As the House must know, they made their decision about the European airbus without standing on strict criteria—anyway, at the time of the last conference which we attended with them. The French have behaved similarly, and the Italians use public enterprise on a much bigger scale, certainly in development areas, than we have done. For us to approach Europe on the basis that market forces will solve all our problems or create a healthy engineering industry is a very big mistake.
I turn now to some points which, I believe, the Government must take immediately into consideration.

Mr. Dan Jones: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the aircraft industry, may I impress on him in turn to impress upon the Government the hope that there will be possibilities of the Government's proceeding with the mark II of the RB211?

Mr. Benn: Well, my hon. Friend may be fortunate and catch the eye of the Chair. The argument about a further mark of RB211 has to be seen in the context of the market available for it. When we do have that debate, as surely we must, on Rolls-Royce, we shall have opportunity to pursue this, but I hope that my hon. Friend may wish to raise it in the context of this debate, too.
What I am arguing today is that the Government should look again at the need for direct intervention to promote employment, and there are five areas I


have identified which require serious consideration. The first is the area which one can perhaps properly call that of the advanced industries. We want decisions on aircraft; we want decisions on further expansion of the machine tool industry, given the Government claim that within a year there will be a demand for more machine tools; and on electronics, where there is a serious danger that with the importation of cheap micro-circuits from abroad this country will be left in effect without a micro-circuits industry at all.
The second area is in those industries which have special difficulties, and there is no doubt at all that shipbuilding is still an example of such. It would be very wrong at this moment for the Government to leave the work of dealing with the shipbuilding industry solely to a small group of civil servants within the Department of Trade and Industry. Thirdly, there is regional development. I cited at the beginning the figures published by the Government last week, and they appeared in the newspapers on 29th January, and they make it clear that in 1971, following the change in the Government's regional policy, the number of new jobs being created in the regions is everywhere diminishing except for, I think, 40 more in East Anglia, against a drop of 43,000 or more nation-wide. Here is an area where it is immensely difficult to get industry to go simply on the basis of trying to build confidence indirectly. I have no doubt at all that the rôle of public enterprise in regional development will have to be looked at more seriously, as it has been in other countries.
Next is the area of advancing industrial investment where there is an obvious time lag. I am really astonished that the Government on one hand should be urging the nationalised industries to advance their own investment—here is an area where the Government have rather more scope because they are nationalised industries—and, should be prepared on the other hand, to sit back and accept that the engineering industry should mark time for a year, when they tell us that within that year the engineering industry will be so heavily stretched that even Ministers are anxious that this may lead to the sucking in of imports, with adverse effects on the balance of payments.
Fifth, there is the area of the broad range of what one may call environmental expenditure. I hope I shall not be out of order if I cite as one example of this the case which has received wide publicity this weekend in respect of the R.T.Z. smelter at Bristol where lead poisoning has occurred at levels that can affect not only the employees of the firm concerned but the community, and, if the test results made available are correct in the Severn Estuary itself. Here is an area where there is a divergence between profit and loss as it appears in a company's balance sheet and the social benefits or disadvantages as they affect the community as a whole. The environment represents an absolutely correct and legitimate and, indeed, urgent area where the Government should be spending money now to create employment as well as to meet the main objectives which I have mentioned.

Dame Irene Ward: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. I want to ask him whethter he would not just pay credit to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the other Ministers for all the work they have ever done. I can do all the criticising, but it becomes awfully boring to hear from the right hon. Gentleman nothing but criticism, without his saying anything about the achievements which there have been. I would like to hear what he has to say about what has been done in a very big way indeed.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady is always a colourful contributor to our debates, and everybody likes to be loved, and we all love her for her contributions, but I think she will recognise that I am at present identifying areas where Government intervention is desirable. Of course, it is true that in all these areas there is some Government intervention, but what I am arguing is that in this area of the environment there is scope for even further intervention. We all recognise that the Secretary of State for the Environment is extremely keen to promote the environment; but in that, he is building on the work done by the previous Government, which, in their turn, built on work done by Governments even before that.
In looking at the five areas which I have identified it is obvious that the case
for Government intervention and public enterprise in all of them is growing daily stronger. The Government themselves recognised this by nationalising Rolls-Royce, though their handling of the operation left much to be desired and some people were badly hurt. In the case of shipbuilding, Govan Shipbuilders will be private enterprise only in name, because of the public assets going into it, and probably £10 million to £20 million of public money on top of that. It is the experience now of other countries, notably Italy, that public enterprise plays a large part in causing employment to develop. Even the French regard their side of Concorde at Toulouse, itself a nationalised industrial enterprise as part of their regional development programme. For the reasons I have given, the nationalised industries have very great advantages over private industry in their capacity to advance investment to meet this problem.
Even if these major changes cannot be announced at once, there is no doubt that there must be more orders advanced from the public sector for machine tools, particularly pre-production orders, and an advancement of orders for re-equipment from the nationalised industries. As has been urged by my right hon. Friend and I, and others, in recent weeks and months, cash grants should be re-introduced to stimulate investment, certainly during the next 12 months, the regional employment premium should be maintained and some means of channelling investment into industry through national sources should be found.
Whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite are still as resolutely opposed to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, I do not know, but I do know that in present circumstances a growing body of opinion in industry and the City is convinced that there must be some agency which will allow the Government to stimulate investment through a public body. We require also the clear decisions on aircraft and shipbuilding to which I have referred.
The Government have been in power for more than 18 months. During that period unemployment has risen to the highest level since the war. Scotland, Wales, the North and the North-West have sunk to the lowest levels they have experienced in many years, and the blight

has spread to the prosperous regions. Engineering has slumped, investment is stagnant, confidence has hit bottom, if The Times is to be believed, and industrial relations, measured by days lost, have been a great deal worse than they were during the period of Labour Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Leeds on Friday, in a curious moment of frankness, is reported in The Times in these words:
Mr. Barber admitted that unemployment had risen by more than he had expected.
That is the first breakthrough of candour that we have had from the Government Front Bench.
The Amendment which is before us must be the most complacent of any that could have been visualised, given the gravity of the circumstances that face engineering and the people of this country generally. Because the Amendment is as inadequate as the Ministers who have promoted it, I urge the House to vote for the Motion.

5.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognising the problems of heavy industry following five years of almost total economic stagnation, welcomes the steps Her Majesty's Government have taken and are taking to restore confidence in the economy, with the object of providing increased employment, greater price stability and a sound basis for future expansion'.
This is a timely opportunity to consider the problems which have been besetting certain groups of industries. It is important that these problems should be faced and tackled, and this is what the Government have been doing in consultation with the bodies representing the industries.
Unfortunately, the previous Government were disposed to pretend that some of these problems did not exist instead of facing up to them. Indeed, the Opposition are clearly misguided in the Motion which they have tabled. It is misconceived in its terms, and the Amendment which I have moved will assist the Opposition towards reality.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) commented on


the Ministers who are to take part in the debate, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I together cover a wide range of the industries referred to in the Motion. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East raised, for example, the important question of the environment and measures against pollution. I am the Minister who is entirely responsible for these matters in Scotland as the counterpart of the Secretary of State for the Environment who has responsibility for environmental matters in England. I do not think that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will complain about that. I am very much aware of the importance, in planning for new industries and the installations which they bring, of the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised about the environment and pollution.
The most difficult problems for the three groups of industries mentioned in the Motion have undoubtedly arisen from the severe inflation which was raging in 1970. Because these industries plan and work over longer periods than most other industries, they were hard hit by sharply rising costs. Moreover, it became difficult to look ahead, and this inhibited new investment.
When we took office we found the economy in a deep-freeze, following a low rate of growth and monetary squeezes. But we were also faced with a wild wave of inflation caused by the sudden burst of wage demands after the abortive statutory incomes policy of the previous Government. One of our priority tasks has been to curb that dangerous inflation; and we can now see that the country has succeeded in reducing the average rate of wage settlements.

Mr. F. A. Burden: In this context, does my right hon. Friend remember that in July. 1967, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said—and this is an accurate quotation—[Laughter.] If hon. Members check the words, they will find they are absolutely right. He said that if there is devaluation, any attempt by organised labour to obtain wage increases must be ruthlessly resisted.

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is correct in his recollection. It rings a

chord with me as having been said at that time.
We can also see that, as a result, price increases in recent months have also presented a much better picture.
Perhaps no industry has suffered more from this bout of severe inflation than the shipbuilding industry, owing to the long-term nature of its work and contracts. With the success of our efforts in the battle against inflation, and the reduction of the general trend of wage settlements, we are probably doing more to help the shipbuilding industry than we could in any other single way.
One of the effects of the rapid increase in wage rates over the past two years has been the large-scale shedding of labour by industry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described this in his speech in the House a week ago. While there has been a massive shake-out of employment during the past year or so, productivity in the past year rose by as much as 5½ per cent. This is the new phenomenon which has contributed to the distressingly high unemployment figures. We are now having to deal with an entirely new element in unemployment, especially in the manufacturing industries.
I must point out, however, that one of the groups of industries being discussed today, the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, has not, in the last two years, in Great Britain as a whole, reduced the number of its employees. Indeed, since 1969 the numbers of employed have increased by about 3,000 That is the difference between the numbers employed in September, 1969, and last November.
While the shipbuilding industry has great problems before it, largely arising from very steep inflation, it has not fewer people in total employment now than it had in 1969. It is in fact employing more. On this point, therefore, the Motion tabled by the Opposition is both defective and misleading.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a breakdown of the figures?

Mr. Campbell: I shall be dealing with particular problems and the future in a moment. In manufacturing industry as a


whole employment has fallen by as much as 4½ per cent. in the last year.

Mr. Douglas: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with his argument, will he give the House a breakdown of the figures between shipbuilding and ship repairing? Secondly, if we are moving on to a period in which inflationary wage demands, as he calls them, are having very little effect on the shipbuilding industry, will he guarantee that the shipbuilding industry will be able to quote fixed price contracts against the rest of the world?

Mr. Campbell: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures: 153,000 in September, 1969, and 156,000 last November. The breakdown is in regard not only to shipbuilding repairs but boat building. I will arrange to let the hon. Gentleman have the whole breakdown. There are a number of figures and I cannot give them now. As regards fixed price contracts, this is for the industry itself to decide; but when it is up against inflation at the sort of rate which was reached in 1970, it is difficult for it to know what costs are going to be for a period of four years ahead and to make contracts of that kind.
In manufacturing industry as a whole there has been a reduction in employment by about 4½ per cent. This has led to the sort of unemployment figures which we have seen this winter and which we in the Government deplore. We are determined to get rid of this high unemployment, but it is clear that it cannot be cured only by the kind of measures which have been effective in the past. Many firms are evidently ready to increase production without necessarily adding to their labour forces. One of the main objectives is to increase the growth rate of the economy, and there are already signs that this is happening.

Mr. James Sillars: In helping the House to understand the Government's difficulties, could the right hon. Gentleman say what growth rate would be required in the United Kingdom be fore we got full employment in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: This is a calculation which economists would find it difficult to agree about, but I understand that economists are suggesting a growth rate this year of about 5 per cent., and every-

body is agreed that this would be in the right direction. In this way the human resources and skills which have become redundant can again find employment.
We want to change as soon as possisble a situation in which many families are experiencing the misfortune of having one or more of their members on the dole. My right hon. Friends and I are acutely aware of the unhappiness and insecurity which unemployment brings. Our policies are designed to promote the new investment which provides lasting jobs, producing goods and services needed in the modern world. Indeed, we must aim for the goods and services which are positively in demand in the world today, and will be in the future.
No Government have ever pumped so much money into the economy in so short a period, or advanced so many projects particularly in the areas needing special assistance. Besides the figure of £1,400 million a year of tax cuts, the abolition of restrictions on hire purchase and reducing Bank Rate, the measures have included £160 million of advanced public works in the development areas—about £60 million is extra expenditure on roads—accelerated capital expenditure by the nationalised industries of £100 million, and, not least, £80 million of advanced naval and other Government shipbuilding.
Advancing this shipbuilding programme will help the shipbuilding industry in areas of high unemployment. In particular, a large proportion of it has been placed with firms in Scotland; namely, the Scott-Lithgow group, Yarrows and Robb Caledon. Only last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced that certain transport orders worth several million pounds were being brought forward to the next two years, including ferries, which will provide more work for shipbuilders. There were also orders placed for 100 Bulldog aircraft, and this wil lhelp Scottish Aviation.
I turn to regional development. The Government have been tackling high unemployment in particular parts of the country. After reviewing the situation on taking office, we made a number of changes to increase the effectiveness of regional measures as a whole. High priority was given to the acute problems


of the older industrial areas and assistance was extended considerably under the Local Employment Acts. More flexible use is now being made of the powers to make loans under those Acts and of the powers to give grants. The rates of building grants to new factories and extensions have been increased, and they can now be as high as 45 per cent. The 40 per cent. initial tax allowance for new industrial building is being continued indefinitely, instead of reverting to 15 per cent. as the previous Government had intended.
An important change has been the introduction of a new system of free depreciation in the development areas. This enables the whole expenditure on new plant and machinery to be written off in the year in which it is purchased. Moreover, it can be carried back against the trading profits of the three previous years, and, if necessary, it can be taken forward to later years. Free depreciation has also been extended to the service industries in the development areas.
The importance of this system of free depreciation has been emphasised by industry. Recently the Scottish Council drew attention to its value as an incentive for the re-equipment of industry with capital goods. Increased activity in the capital goods sector is likely to have more Effect in the development areas than elsewhere.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated during the debate on the Address, the Government are studying alternative options in regional development, and this is a progressive and continuous process. But it must be borne in mind that the investment decisions of industry are made more difficult if too many changes in the system are being made too often.
I turn to the shipbuilding industry. The Government's aim is to promote the ability of the industry to compete in world markets. The assistance given generally to the industry is broadly comparable in amount to the average given by other shipbuilding countries to their industries, for example through the Home Shipbuilding Credit Scheme and the Shipbuilders' Relief Subsidy. In certain respects encouraging progress has been made. The merchant order book

approaches 4·5 million gross tons, worth £680 million. The naval order book is worth £400 million, of which nearly half is represented by export orders. The major yards in the industry have work for at least two years and some substantial orders thereafter.
A wide variety of ships are being built. In particular, Harland and Wolff, Swan Hunters and Scott Lithgow are competing in the big ship league. Inflation has hit the industry hard, but it is now being brought under control.
In certain respects the United Kingdom industry still faces serious problems. Labour relations remain a vital area in which both sides of the industry must co-operate to achieve much higher levels of productivity in the yards. It is disturbing that the output of the industry over the last five years has remained very much the same, at a little over 1 million gross tons per annum.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is satisfied with the existing order book of the British shipbuilding industry when compared with previous years?

Mr. Campbell: No, I am not satisfied, but I am stating what the situation is. It is more encouraging than some reports which have been circulating would suggest. I should like to inform the House about the latest situation on the Upper Clyde where there are special problems.

Captain Walter Elliot: It has been said that we aim to help our industry by an equivalent amount to that which is being provided by foreign Governments to help their shipbuilding industries. Since there are many subtle ways of subsidising industry which are used all over the world, has my right hon. Friend an efficient method of finding out all about them and estimating what is required?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend raises the question of subtle and perhaps not obvious ways of assisting industry. The information which I have is that on average in the assistance given to our ship builders we compare broadly with what is done in other countries. There are some countries which give more help and some which give less.
In regard to the situation on the Upper Clyde, since the sudden application for


liquidation last June by the U.C.S. company, progress has been made with the proposals we outlined in the debate on 2nd August for a successor company based upon the Govan and Linthouse yards. A feasibility study was commissioned by the Government to include examination of the question whether the Scotstoun yard could be included. The result of that study is expected shortly.
A tragic and severe loss was sustained by the death of the chairman of the new company, Mr. Hugh Stenhouse, in a road accident. He had already become dedicated to making a success of the new project, and his energy and enthusiasm quickly spread to others. This was an untimely setback. But we have been extremely fortunate in the arrival of a new chairman, Lord Strathalmond, who is also imbued with the determination to make a success of Govan Shipbuilders and so to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of Clydeside.
The Government have provided the liquidator with working capital and have given certain guarantees to shipowners to enable them to confirm orders. The liquidator has consequently been able to continue work in the yards of the former U.C.S., while plans for the future are under consideration.
The liquidator and the Government have also been in touch with several concerns which have been interested in the Clydebank yard. The most recent is the lively interest shown by an American company, Marathon Manufacturing. It is interested in acquiring the Clydebank yard for the construction of oil rigs, and representatives were in this country last week investigating practical aspects of this. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry saw representatives of the company last Friday after their visit to Glasgow. The Government have taken great trouble with the liquidator to attract concerns and to interest them in the Clydebank yard, and I reject strongly a suggestion to the contrary which I thought that I detected in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The new company, Govan Shipbuilders, is preparing proposals to be put to the Government. An important condition for the launching of the new company is that efficient working practices should be agreed between management and unions. Negotiations on this will need

to be completed soon to avoid any hiatus between the finishing of former U.C.S. ships and the takeover by the new company of yards from the liquidator.
When a system of working practices has been determined, the rate of throughput of ships should be faster than the yards have experienced hitherto. This will mean continuing work for the suppliers. While the number of men working directly in the yards on the Upper Clyde seems likely to be reduced, we must remember the men working for the suppliers also. If, for some unfortunate reason, Govan Shipbuilders were unable to get started, many jobs outside the yards would also be affected.

Mr. Douglas: We keep telling the right hon. Gentleman that.

Mr. Campbell: I have said it before, but it needs saying again. I said it at the beginning of August in this House.
I need not emphasise how vital it is that the conditions should be met soon to enable Govan Shipbuilders to get going.
The redundancies at U.C.S. since June have been something over 1,000 so far. However, the evidence from the latest figures registered is that the unemployment from shipbuilding and ship repairing on Clydeside is now no higher than it was last March before the liquidation of U.C.S. Alternative jobs are available at Yarrows and Scott-Lithgow. The latter will be taking on several hundred more men, though the vacancies will not precisely match the trades becoming redundant on the Upper Clyde.

Mr. Buchan: Then, where is the right hon. Gentleman's 1,000?

Mr. Campbell: It was suggested by some last summer that U.C.S. could have continued in being with a further £6 million of Government assistance. It is now all too clear that this is a fallacy. It would have needed a great deal more than that. The liquidator found debts of about £32 million. Of course, about £20 million from the taxpayers had already gone to U.C.S.—far more than any special assistance to any other individual shipbuilding company. That £20 million has disappeared. It did not go into capital equipment but, apparently, went towards meeting losses.
When Govan shipbuilders gets going, as I hope it soon will, it is our intention that the money provided by the Government will be for constructive purposes.

Mr. Buchan: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Clydebank situation and the work that the Government had been doing behind the scenes. Clearly, one of the problems in establishing Govan-Linthouse—and, we would expect, Scotstoun—is the argument that the four yards must be dealt with before discussion takes place. The Government could assist now if they said openly and publicly that if a reasonable offer came from one of these American firms to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred Government support would be Forthcoming to support the Clydebank yard. It is vital that the right hon. Gentleman should say this openly and directly.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to me on 2nd August when I said that the Government were prepared to make assistance available which is available under the Local Employment Acts and in other ways for any such new venture. The interests which have come forward—there have been at least four in recent weeks, and there were others before that which ceased their interest—looked at Clydebank with a view to different purposes. The present one is oil rigs. Another one which has been interested for many weeks was concerned with a new form of tanker for liquid gas. Therefore it is not possible to give any definite terms until proposals come forward. All that one can say is that the normal assistance from the Government under the Acts is there and will be available, and that each concern can look at that, applying its own plan.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Clydebank yard is the key to the establishment of Govan Shipbuilders. I think that the anxiety felt in Clydeside is that if the Government take only the Local Employment Act money on a very strictly limited basis and leave out of account the enormous social costs involved in allowing Clydebank to slip out of the industry, they will not get a measure of the true economics of supporting Clydebank with some new owner. The House wants to know

whether the Government are prepared to think flexibly about the amount of money necessary to re-launch Clydebank, for the reasons that I have given, and also to make possible the establishment of Govan Shipbuilders with Scotstoun included.

Mr. Campbell: The Government are always willing to think flexibly, and we have been doing a great deal to attract possible firms from different parts of the world, as well as this country, which might be able to use Clydebank in a number of different ways, and not simply for building ships. But we have also made it clear that Government assistance in the usual form as applied to a new project is available. However, it is difficult until one has a project put forward, whether it be for oil rigs or for liquid gas tankers, to say how flexibly the Government can approach the project. There are a wide variety of possibilities on Clydebank. The Marathon company has entered the scene only fairly recently, and the Government are doing their best to help it size up the problem. We very much hope that that company will find that this is a yard in which it can make the kind of oil rig that it intends.
That brings me to the new oil industry in the North Sea. It calls for skills associated with shipbuilding. Only one company, B.P., has so far announced its plans, but there is clearly a major oil field in the North Sea. Conditions are more difficult than in any other maritime oil operation. The depth of water requires the largest platforms in the world for drilling and extraction. Highly specialised knowledge and techniques are needed, from experts and companies who lead the world. But valuable work and services can be provided from Britain.
Already there have been rapid developments in Scotland. Following B.P.'s announcement, there is clearly work to be done on pipelines and expanding refinery capacity. Planning authorities have been able to grant permission quickly while watching amenity and other considerations. I have myself been able to give planning permission quickly to Messrs. Brown and Root/Wimpey at Nigg Bay, where that concern is to build these giant platforms, one of which has already been ordered from it by B.P.—

Mr. Douglas: Two.

Mr. Campbell: One from this company. No time has been lost in finding a site, applying for planning permission, and then getting the contracts.
Another international firm which is a leading specialist in this work has applied at another site in Scotland. Platforms are also to be built on Teesside. Each of these new installations will employ several hundred men, and some of the skills needed are those which we can readily supply. The important point is that this construction work will be taking place in Britain, much of it in the North and East of Scotland. Each of these platforms requires a huge quantity of steel—it has been said as much as for a large liner.
On the steel industry, the House is aware of the general position concerning the investment plans of the British Steel Corporation. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry confirmed the situation on 16th December. The corporation is unlikely to reach a conclusion on the question of major new capacity until the summer. The review which it is near to completing will provide an assessment of the longer-term level of demand, but there is no question of the Government reaching a decision until we have received proposals from the B.S.C. In the meantime, the options for the whereabouts of any major new steelworks remain open.
I must make it clear that there was no foundation whatever for a report which appeared in the Press last Friday to the effect that the Government had abandoned the idea of a new integrated steelworks in Britain, irrespective of whether the site would be in England, Scotland or Wales. I do not know where that false rumour started, for there has in fact been a recent decision of quite another kind. I refer to the announcement made today by the British Steel Corporation that it has decided upon an ore terminal at Hunterston. I am sure that the House will welcome this news. It means that the B.S.C. will now start immediate talks with the Clyde Port Authority on this project.
I am especially pleased, as hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will know, because after the protracted public inquiry I granted planning permission for an ore terminal and deep-

water port and zoning for industrial development at Hunterston. In addition, last September the Government joined the newly formed Hunterston Development Company in financing a project study designed to establish the feasibility and costs of reclamation required to develop the full potential of Hunterston.

Dame Irene Ward: This is very good news. Our ore terminal on the Tyne has been moved to Teesside. Therefore, I should like to know what we are going to get regarding an ore terminal which is just as important to Tyneside. It is interesting to hear about Scotland, but I should like to hear more about Tyneside and Teesside.

Mr. Campbell: I will make sure that my hon. Friend's question is referred to the British Steel Corporation. I did just now mention that one of these very large new oil platforms was being built on Teesside.

Dame Irene Ward: I heard my right hon. Friend say that.

Mr. Campbell: But the news from the British Steel Corporation today happens to be news for Scotland. That is why I referred to it.

Mr. Buchan: We should have more debates like this.

Mr. Campbell: Because of the increasing use of mammoth ships, the deep-water asset at Hunterston has the capability of providing an ocean terminal for Britain and a trading gateway to Europe. Nowhere else round Britain's shores can sheltered deep-water berths be made available for what I would call leviathans up to half a million tons without need of dredging. The potential latent here in the Lower Clyde must now enter into the assessments of developers of industry of all kinds and of the Government.
Returning to the steel industry, the British Steel Corporation announced last year its short-term projects, including Llanwern and Ravenscraig. At the same time, it is confronted by the need for necessary modernisation. This entails the progressive closing down of obsolescent plant, with attendant problems arising in some of the areas concerned.
In July we announced the Government's intention to encourage mineral development in this country by contributing to


costs incurred by mining companies engaged in proving our mineral resources. We have now introduced measures which are geared to meet the special needs of companies engaged in this activity, and the necesary legislation has been passed by the House. Under this legislation, we are offering financial incentives amounting to £25 million with provision for a further £25 million by order. This has been welcomed by the metal mining industry and by others engaged in mineral exploration. It is already having a stimulating effect on the level of activity. If my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forgive me, I should point out that Scotland stands to gain especially, because of the considerable mineral wealth which is believed to be awaiting discovery there.
The Opposition's Motion simply does not stand up to examination. The shipbuilding industry, as I have pointed out, has not dropped in employment in the last two years. On the contrary, it has gained about 3,000 jobs. Furthermore, any damage to the industry has arisen directly from the calamitous rate of inflation caused by the last Government's policies.
Regarding the iron and steel industry, there has been very little investment in re-equipment over the past eight years. The Motion speaks of uncertainties; but the steel industry had the greatest uncertainty possible because of nationalisation hanging over it, and it was made a political football by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Today the steel industry must catch up with modernisation if it is to compete in world markets. This means that for the same amount of production fewer men are needed. This modernisation of the steel industry is now happening at the same time as the general shake-out in the engineering industries which I have described.

Mr. Dan Jones: Why is it that, with the copious references to Scotland and the equally copious references to development areas, the right hon. Gentleman has made no reference at all to intermediate areas? May I remind him that I represent an intermediate area which depends upon the engineering industry for its industrial sustenance.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will find that I used the generic term

"assisted areas" to cover all three types: special development, development, and intermediate areas. I should make it clear that, in a speech which I have tried to keep to the usual Front Bench length, I have not attempted to cover all the many aspects which could be covered in this wide subject.

Mr. Alex Eadie: rose—

Mr. Campbell: Let there be no mistake—

Mr. Eadie: Since the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to give way to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a matter which rests between the two hon. Members concerned, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. Campbell: rose—

Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order—[Interruption.] This is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eadie: May I suggest—

Hon. Members: Sit down

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that his was a further point of order. There was no previous point of order.

Mr. Campbell: I had no intention of being discourteous. I have already given way to many hon. Members during the debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too many."] I hear someone say "Too many". I did not see the hon. Gentleman. If I had seen him rise, I would have given way. I give way now.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Since he has given us very good news today, since he is talking about jobs and unemployment, and since his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has some responsibility for the mining industry, will be winding up the debate, will he assure the people who will be subjected to power cuts that something will be done to bring the miners' strike to an end?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will have detected that I have touched


on a large number of subjects. I was not going to touch on the coal industry, which lies within the responsibility of my hon. Friend.
Let there be no mistake where Scotland is concerned that Scottish industry and commerce have made it clear that they are in favour of Britain joining the European Economic Community. They intend to go for the opportunities which will be open to them with membership. Given encouragement, the leaders of Scottish industry with vision and enterprise will succeed in getting more orders and increasing business. I am not one of those—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—who say that joining the Common Market will solve all our problems—not at all—but it gives us much wider scope to operate in this vast, rapidly expanding market. Those working in Scottish industry will respond with the skills and energy they possess in good measure. There is no place for gloom and defeatism in this.
There is no doubt that the three groups of industries have to face new demands and conditions in the world, but they can now do this with confidence. First, they can do so because inflation has been curbed, and that can now clearly be seen. Second, they can do so because new opportunities are open to them arising from membership of the European Economic Community and from new prospects such as the developing undersea oil industry. Third, they can be confident because there is a Government determined to promote growth in the economy and to encourage these industries to modernise and overcome their difficulties.

5.51 p.m

Mr. Stanley Orme: I have not before had the opportunity of following the Secretary of State for Scotland in a debate, but doing so on this occasion leads me to have sympathy with some of my Scottish friends who have to deal with the right hon. Gentleman on Scottish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman concentrated a large proportion of his speech on Scotland but I think he will agree that the debate goes wider than Scotland and covers all regions and parts of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no need for any gloom, but he made that statement in what seemed to

me to be a rather gloomy way. We are faced with the problem of 1 million unemployed. We are faced with a rundown in our major manufacturing industry of engineering on which we depend for our exports. My hon. Friends representing areas such as Scotland, Wales and the North-East have been plagued with unemployment problems for a long time, but we are now meeting the problem of unemployment in what used to be regarded as the more prosperous areas, such as the Midlands, the North-West and even the South-East. All those areas are being affected by what is happening in industry.
We are told that the problem stems from structural changes in industry, but structural changes are nothing new. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, which was only comparatively recently, industry has undergone structural changes, sometimes under boom conditions and sometimes under conditions of depression. Changes have taken place and, as my hon. Friends have said, those changes have been brought about by market forces over which the industries have had no control. With our inherent skills in technology and craftsmanship it is an absolute crime that we are not producing to the full in order to meet the demands of people all over the world and at the same time improve our standards of living.
A sane man is bound to ask how such a situation has arisen. I know that under the Labour Government we were faced with the problem of increasing unemployment and that there were many arguments about what might or might not be done to deal with it. I think some of my right hon. Friends would admit that some of the Labour Government's policies were wrong and that more imaginative policies should have been adopted. But surely everyone will accept that the Labour Government were not in the hopeless situation in which they the present Government find themselves, because the Conservative Government merely wring their hands and announce that, unfortunately, unemployment is increasing. The Government say that they have injected a certain amount of money into the economy, but it is not producing results.
Despite the industrial situation, we are still seeing booms in other sectors. There is still a property boom. There are all sorts of ways in which capital is being


increased, and there is still financial speculation, but there is no investment in order to produce more employment. I think we must examine the problem in the labour-intensive industries. In the name of rationalisation attempts are being made to close down labour-intensive firms. In the present situation that is criminal.
I have spent the greater part of my life as an apprentice and craftsman in the engineering industry. The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial relations and to wage inflation. What he did not tell the House was that bad industrial relations in the engineering industry are due to the engineering employers being too archaic and being unwilling to accept that we are now in 1972. He did not tell the House that the Engineering Employers Association is not prepared to sign a new agreement with the engineering trade unions which would give workers some dignity and rights within their own plants.
The engineering employers have withdrawn from the proposals to set up a new agreement in the engineering industry. Time and again during debates in the House hon. Members have said that the York Memorandum is unsatisfactory for modern industrial relations. That memorandum was imposed upon the trade unions at the time of the lockout in 1921 and 1922. There is now a chance for a fresh start in the engineering industry, and the trade unions have leaned over backwards to try to improve the situation. The Government for their part have brought in the Industrial Relations Act and an industrial relations code of conduct, but they have not dealt with the central issue, which is that of introducing the status quo for workers. The Government have dodged that issue because their friends in the industry are opposed to it.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about high wages being at the bottom of our problems. I have always believed in a high wage economy. Recently an agreement was made in the tool-making industry in the Midlands whereby toolmakers are to receive £52 a week. They are possibly the highest paid craftsmen in the country. The firm is prepared to pay that money, not because of extortion or blackmail but because its unit costs are

low. The trade unions which negotiated that settlement were right to do so.
I do not want to spend too much time on what I might call the general politics of the engineering industry but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said, there has been a 6 per cent. reduction in the labour force and 100,000 people leave manufacturing industry every year. The rundown is accelerating, and we must, therefore, take positive steps to overcome the problem.
I now propose to say something about redundancy. I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's comments on what the workers and the shipyards have done at U.C.S. Trade unions are often criticised, but the trade unionists at U.C.S. and elsewhere are fighting not for more money or the standards to which they are entitled but for the right to work. They say that when a community is built up on a particular industry, no one has the right to make it derelict by a stroke of a pen. This is not the north of Scotland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries but Clydebank in 1972. Workers there are exerting their right in a highly intelligent manner, with which I and many of my hon. Friends are pleased to be associated. They are not out of the wood yet, there are difficulties to come and perhaps some heartaches, but they have set a fresh pattern for British industry.
The Government will make announcements tomorrow or on Wednesday about retraining for the unemployed. I am in favour of retraining, but in the greater Manchester area craftsmen who have followed the same trade as their fathers and grandfathers are moving on to the highest technological tools and working to the highest precision limits. One such skilled craftsman I know is now pushing a brush in a foundry. This is wastage and very wrong socially. It is no good talking about retraining when those who are already trained, the lifeblood of our industry and our nation, are being thrown out.
The Hawker Siddeley aircraft firm, despite increased orders, made 350 people redundant last week. A total of 1,100 people—400 due to wastage—finished at the British Steel Corporation works at Irlam on 31st December, 1971. Churchill Machine Tools Limited, which is now a


subsidiary of Alfred Herbert, has been in the Salford and Broadheath area for 50 years and its precision grinders are second to none in the world. It has an order book of £2¼ million, with enough full-time work to last it into 1973 and 1974. But, in the name of rationalisation, Alfred Herbert's want to close the firm and transfer some of the tools and highly skilled workers to Coventry.
In a B.B.C. North programme on televisison, the managing director said that his first duty was to his shareholders and that social consequences were the Government's responsibility. That is as irresponsible as anything that the iron-masters said in the nineteenth century. One cannot contract out like that. The shareholders will not suffer.
In a firm which has an exceptional industrial relations record, the Churchill workers decided to fight, like those at U.C.S., Fisher-Bendix and Plessey. They are not fighting selfishly. The shopkeepers, the local authority, and everyone in the area are supporting them. This is not just one firm of 1,100 men. Other firms with apprenticeship and training arrangements in the area could go, and this could take a lifetime of industry and development from the area.
About two years ago, those workers would probably have taken their redundancy pay and, after a week or two, found another job with G.E.C., English Electric and A.E.I. But there are no such jobs for them now. There are hundreds of skilled engineers signing the vacancies book in the greater Manchester area. It is particularly difficult to place fitters. They have nowhere to go. Skilled members of my union branch who were made redundant about eight months ago have not yet found alternative employment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East referred to the Churchill struggle and the intelligent way in which those men are fighting to maintain employment. At the Alfred Herbert plant in Coventry, where some workers are on a four-day week, they have refused to take the work from Broadheath and are standing by the lads who are fighting to keep their factory open. That is true trade union solidarity.
The Prime Minister recently visited the North-West and following his visit there was correspondence between him and the

North-West Industrial Development Association. I have never read such a trite and complacent reply as that which the Prime Minister sent. His reply was unanimously rejected by that all-party body, which has Conservative and Labour members, trade unionists and industrialists. The situation is deteriorating rapidly and there is an urgent need for something to be done.
One cannot divorce many of these closures and the lack of investment from the question of the Common Market. I believe that many large firms are holding back investment so that they can have free movement of capital later on. Some of this rationalisation is only a drawing-in from the outer regions. The Secretary of State said that the Common Market would have a good effect on Scotland. I doubt this, but other areas will be affected because there will be a tug towards the centre of a new industrial oligarchy in South-East Europe.
The key to our problems was summed up by the managing director of Albert Herbert, who said that his responsibility was to the shareholders. Our responsibility is to the industry and its workers. A future Labour Government must be far more positive in this respect.
We must take a firm hold of the free enterprise society which has failed and which, without direction, continues to fail. When the Government want some form of reflation and when they want to inject money into the economy, it goes into the public sector. We need a much larger public sector so that the economy can be much better planned. There might be many arguments about the form this should take; we could argue about ownership, direction, and workers' participation. Many experiments could be tried Some of them would be successful.
Working people will not go back. They will reject this laissez faire society which is based on accident. The Government take some action; they put so much money out, so much of it into the private sector, but they have no real control over it; they do not know whether it will produce results; they merely hope that it will provide employment. We need a much more positive approach.
This debate is pertinent to the general argument. It is to the engineering industry—the manufacturing side—that we


must pay attention. The workers in the industry, with their skill and organisations, have something to offer the country. We must get our priorities right so that those who produce the wealth in our society get their just rewards.

6.11 p.m

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I commend the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) on his fluency—a fluency which I cannot match because of a rather heavy cold. The only hon. Member who dare sit near me is my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) to whom I gave the cold last week. I can only hope that through the air conditioning my germs will waft across to hon. Members opposite.
I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to the new phenomenon of high productivity yet high unemployment. It is on this problem in the engineering industry that I shall concentrate.
I want first to make a critical comment on the relationship which is accepted as standard between the theory and the facts of unemployment in engineering today. Successive Governments have found no substitute for the standard Keynesian dogma about the way in which unemployment problems of the type we face today can be solved. What J. K. Galbraith called the conventional economic wisdom has stood through decades without challenge, whilst education, consumer expectation and technology have surged forward. Today's economists still greatly rely on the teaching they heard 20 or 30 years ago, which was itself based on the experience of the 1920s and the 1930s. Nobody then appeared to be able to cope competently with the empty shipbuilding yards in Jarrow any more than the last Government's rationalisation could cope with the problems of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders forty years later.
The strategic and tactical effects of this widening gap between an understanding of what is happening and the reality of events is, I am convinced, a major factor in causing the unemployment which exists today, particularly in engineering. Unemployment is more than just one

man out of a job or 1 million men out of jobs. It is a scar which is carried forward throughout that man's life and usually, as happened in the 1930s, into the lives of his children. It reflects upon the whole enterprise of the man and his family and his willingness to take risks at a time when it might be to his benefit to do so.
The hon. Member for Salford, West asked what are the structural changes which are going on. Two new factors have emerged as realities in engineering over the last 10 years. Both of them should have been anticipated rather than just observed. The first of these has had a tactical effect and the second a strategic effect.
There is, first, the cumulative effect which arrived rather suddenly of two decades of active labour-saving investigations. They stemmed from the wartime experience of United States productivity and the encouragement which took place, particularly in the few years after the Second World War, when teams from the engineering industry in Britain went to the United States to study laboursaving processes.
There has, second, been the outflanking effect of advancing technical knowledge on traditional jobs and on traditional industries. The whole idea of time and motion study was to get more production from each person. There is nothing particularly wrong about that, because at the end of it employees generally get some form of bonus, whether it be of the "stop-watch, I'm all right Jack" type or, at the other end, management systems like the Pert management control system.
As the hon. Member for Salford, West said, there has been a decline in labour-intensive industry demands in Britain, not only because of the time and motion study experience but also because of the competition which those very industries have experienced from abroad. Lancashire has to compete with India, Clyde-side had to compete with Japan. Coventry and Oxford had to compete with Wolfsburg.
Acting against this problem throughout much of the 1960s was the propensity of management to hoard labour, both on the shop floor and in offices. The consequential effect on wages and the


bargaining power of unions, particularly unions like D.A.T.A., had to be seen to be believed. The skilled employee rapidly discovered that he had only to threaten to go to work for a competitor and he was soon given a fairly sensible and handsome pay rise.
The trigger which broke that hoarding of labour can be traced to selective employment tax. It did not do what it was intended to do, which was to displace people from service industries and get them into production. It ate up companies' cash resources which they should have been using for new investment in plant and machinery and in the extension of factories.
I commend to the Government the Swedish Government's attitude towards encouraging investment and their capital equipment investment scheme—not so much as an investment incentive but as a proven means of minimising the bad effects of a business cycle.
In the 1960s it was the wage pressure and the tax pressure combined which forced managements to shed their hoarded labour. A very successful industrialist in the motor car industry said to me recently, "What we have done now is to shake a tree which we should have shaken long ago. We are not going to have those people again."
These shake-outs have swept the engineering industry and have brought unemployment to people who in the last decade were actively encouraged by managements and unions alike to believe that they were worth far more in the market place then they now find they are. This is the particular tragedy of the unemployed white collar worker who has been swept out of a job which he would have held on to in the 1930s, but in the 1970s he finds that he must go with the rest. In terms of Keynesian economics it has been a blow to the heart-land, at the general theory of consumer boom economics which relied particularly on tax reliefs being spent quickly. There may be a consumer boom in suburbia, but it does not give a job to the man across the street who is out of a job.
What is missing all the time in engineering is the growth of new enterprise, because only that will provide jobs for the white-collar workers as well as for the unemployed skilled tool room opera-

tor. I believe that the opportunity for providing new enterprise lies in an examination of the new types of technology which have come forward and the growth in effective knowledge on jobs. A recent American study showed that between 1750 and 1900 the world's total store of technical knowledge doubled. It doubled again between 1900 and 1950, and again between 1950 and 1958; and it is now doubling every five years. Thus it has increased 10 times while economics has virtually stood still over the last 30 or 40 years.
The laws of supply and demand and of diminishing returns are all still there, even if they are not often recognised by either management or unions in this country. They are there, and it is unfortunate that neither the standards of understanding of the unions nor, frequently, those of management have advanced at the same rate as the technology surrounding them.
I believe that environmental pollution is a typical and visible by-product of this problem. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is not here at the moment, because I wanted to advise him not to bother to read the Sunday Times a week after Private Eye had published the story of what is going on at Avonmouth. Here was a typical example of unfortunate collusion between unions and management. Had it not been for a doctor appointed by one of the unions, who held out rigorously over a long time to make sure that the real threat was disclosed, it might have been swept aside completely. It is a tragic state of affairs and I hope that the Government will cause an investigation to be made into what has happened at Avonmouth in order to solve the problem quickly.
There is no doubt that the rapidly changing and growing body of technical knowledge has not been adequately applied in Britain. We have concentrated our attention on preserving old industries without a parallel application of attention to opportunities for using our new knowledge to progress those old industries or found new ones. This goes right back to education, which too often today, I believe, fails to equip pupils adequately with the basic knowledge for them to hold any job, let alone equip them for a life in which, because of the


rate of change and the amount of change, they will have to cope with the need to change their jobs several times, let alone have the ability to field several skills. We need a revolution of understanding in education authorities of the real world in which their pupils have to seek, hold and change jobs.
Recently, I went through an experience which, no doubt, all hon. Members undergo. I met some sociologists. From two separate universities they told me that they were feeling thwarted at the mid-point of their training by a sudden realisation that nobody had jobs to offer them when they completed their courses of study. When I was an apprentice in engineering 25 years ago, I was told repeatedly that all that I learned would lead me to an ability to master one skill alone, when I knew, and all my friends knew then—as all those who are apprentices now know—that training over a four-year or five-year period would enable one, and does enable one, to take on several skills in different factories and in different types of business. Over 25 years attitudes in education have changed far too little, while the needs of employers have been, and are, changing fast.
We must in our education and training processes guarantee to people that they will be taught subjects relevant to what employers predict they want and what they will be able to find when they leave school or university. Above all, we must give them the educational flexibility to be able to cope with changes in employment. Nowhere is the need more apparent than in engineering today.
The Government's predicted retraining plans will be of great help to those now in need. I hope that the schemes will become a permanent part of our education process, as retraining will be a far more frequent need for people as part of the normal pattern of their working lives.
Heretofore, I believe, all the effort has been directed towards higher productivity from reduced labour forces. I hope that we can now move on rapidly to apply the same concentration to the production of new business enterprises in engineering, to utilise the great advances in world technical knowledge, advances which are there and waiting to be used. Environmental conservation, I believe, is

one area of knowledge and enterprise which is crying out for attention.
In the encouragement of new engineering enterprises—although I am as delighted as anyone to hear of the new orders for shipbuilding, oil rigs, aeroplanes and roads—I feel that it is far too often assumed that it is the big industries which need help and stimulus because that is where the growth lies. This is not true in engineering today. What one does by giving new orders to them is to maintain their current employment, not increase it. From my own experience of trying to manage an advanced technological enterprise, I believe that one comes to realise that the optimum size of company is usually quite small, something like 200 or 250 persons, and that it is impossible to manage efficiently anything on a much larger scale.
One of the most valuable advantages of British entry into the Common Market will, I am sure, be the opportunity and ability of specialist engineers to find and found firms which will be able to supply the larger market of Europe, something which they certainly could not do if Britain remained at its current market size. But the intervention which I hope the Government will be able to provide should not be of the I.R.C. type such as hon. Members opposite have suggested. That, surely, after Rolls-Royce and Beagle, has been proved to have been a disaster in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The Common Market is only a year away for Britain now. I hope that the investment incentives which are needed in engineering will be diverted to those ways by which we can help new firms to start up.
Investment incentives and tax reliefs do not help new companies, but cash in any form can. New engineering opportunities are needed and are possible now. I know of many unemployed skilled engineers who would sweat their guts out if given the opportunity to get going in a new company. It is far better for a Government to put their money into work rather than into unemployment pay.
In conclusion, I give one example to show where such enterprise could be fostered: that is, the monitoring and control of pollution. How many study contracts have been placed by the Government with private industry so far? Such


contracts could found whole new businesses quickly, with markets across the world. Engineers do not get sympathy from the City if they go there to look for finance. Are the Government prepared to accept the challenge and act? They have shown that they will step forward in placing orders with shipbuilding and the larger heavy engineering companies. Small engineering companies could use the same chances now.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) will forgive me if, save for my good wishes for his quick recovery from a bad cold, I do not follow his observations further. This is a composite debate and, representing the constituency which probably has a greater concentration of shipbuilding than any other in the United Kingdom, I wish to deal with the particular problems of the shipbuilding industry.
Last year, 1971, was a good year for the Wear yards, and we are completing the modernisation of the yards. But this does not help us in our serious unemployment problem. As a result of modernising the yards, we have year by year had a few hundred fewer men employed than the year before. Moreover, although we have orders up to the end of 1973, the industry, despite what the Secretary of State said, has lost its buoyancy. Indeed, the Minister for Industry himself warned the industry only the other day it is now going "through a difficult period".
The Government have not helped. We had all the uncertainty last year about credit guarantees. A glance at the order book for last year leaves one in no doubt about how much it was affected. Only a year ago the Minister was joyfully anticipating the demise of the Shipbuilding Industry Board and telling the industry that it could hope for no further help from the Government. That was unacceptable to the industry, not because it was a begging-bowl industry but because, among other things, it has no tariff protection, unlike manufacturing industry generally. I have a Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency, and I supported the action the Government took, but the shipbuilders have never had the aid and support that the aircraft industry has had.
The most important factor of all is that by and large the shipyards are in the development areas, and we cannot divorce policy about the shipbuilding industry from development area policy. I am happy to say that the Minister has now eaten his words. It is a practice I commend. A few days ago he told the industry—a blinding revelation—that "the Government, of course, must help". I am delighted to hear that, and I shall encourage him. The Government are indeed helping. The £75 million naval programme has been brought forward. Unfortunately, that does not help us in Sunderland, because we do not build on naval contracts and there would be no good reason for us to do so. There are also the £1,000 million credit guarantees with improved arrangements which do help and are very important.
But internationally the pressure is on, as the Minister has said. That is the fact of life that we must face. The Governments in the countries competing with us in shipbuilding will intervene where and to the extent they think it is necessary to protect their own shipbuilding industries. We need not expect any advantage from the revaluation of the yen, because the Japanese will make certain we do not receive it.
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in regretting the ending of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and I call the Government's attention to the specific recommendation of the Geddes Report that:
The Government should obtain advice from the Shipbuilding Industry Board on the impact on the British shipbuilding industry of the various measures of State assistance and protective devices used overseas.
I invite the Government to do that. They have in Sir William Swallow someone with unparalleled experience. They should ask him to inquire into the matter and evaluate the prospects of State assistance in competing shipbuilding countries and recommend to the Government what countervailing measures they should take.

Mr. Douglas: I hope my right hon. Friend does not want in any way to diminish the importance of the work of the staff of the Shipbuilding Industry Board. I have great respect for Sir William Swallow, but would not my right hon. Friend suggest that what we really need


is the continuation of the Board and the comprehensive expertise it has gained?

Mr. Willey: I have argued this in previous debates. Unfortunately the S.I.B. has been brought to an end. I make my suggestion as something that I hope will be acceptable to the Government. I accept my hon. Friend's point, and when I mention Sir William Swallow I also have in mind the staff who have worked with him.
In the shipbuilding industry we have a basic national industry competing in one of the greatest, if not the greatest, postwar international growth markets. In 1948 we were completing just over half the total tonnage completed in the world, yet today we are completing just about 5 per cent. Britain, which once dominated this great world industry, finds that not only is the total United Kingdom production one-ninth that of Japan but that we have fallen to fourth in the league table, and we are being hard pressed by France. What is particularly significant is that in world competition generally in industrial goods all our major competitors have gone out for shipbuilding. Who competes with us in world markets for industrial production? The answer is Japan, West Germany, Sweden and France, all countries that saw the possibilities of the world shipbuilding market and went for it.
Let us consider the position since the Geddes Report. We may say that the British industry has enjoyed a moderate success since then; we can claim that we have increased our output by about 200,000 tons. But in that period the Japanese have increased their enormous production by a further 5 million tons. In other words, since Geddes the Japanese yards alone have increased their output by four times the total British production. Sweden and Germany have each increased their output by about 1 million tons and France has more than doubled her output.
I regard all this as a measure of the failure of development area policy. We should not have apathetically accepted no better target than to prevent ourselves doing worse. We should have said. "Here is an opportunity for us to expand employment and help tackle development area problems." The position has been

tragic over the past few years, because every one of our major competitors has had difficulties over skilled labour while we, in the development areas, in the shipbuilding districts, have had hundreds and thousands of men stood off and idle. A determination that this basic national industry should at least keep pace with our major competitors, to be no more ambitious, would have done far more for the development areas and would have cost no more than the building a few factories for foot-loose industries. It would have dealt with the basic problem of the development areas.
Fifteen or 16 years ago I published a plan for shipbuilding which later was largely endorsed by the Geddes Report. It was a pity that did not come earlier. But I did not regard the plan as a solution to the problem of shipbuilding; only as a beginning. I pleaded in addition for new forms of public aid and partnership, not to stifle enterprise but to get a deliberate, concerted effort so that we could create an expansionist industry which would take the opportunities in the world market. That would have afforded the basis for a far more effective, dynamic, development area policy than that which has been pursued by successive Governments since the war.
Let the Government prepare and announce a Geddes phase II programme. Let them do no more than accept the very modest target that Geddes set the industry, which should have been attained by now, of 12½ per cent. of the world production and with an output of 2¼ million tons. Let us at any rate make an effort, if it be no more, to make up the ground we have lost since the Geddes Report.
I am concerned because of my constituency, because of the development area in which it happens to be. I am sure that such action by the Government would do far more than anything else to bring back hope to the North-East Coast.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who speaks with great knowledge of the shipbuilding industry and who has, I know, contributed a great deal to the thinking about it in the past. I speak as a Member representing an


area in the West Midlands, where there is suddenly a high rate of unemployment, and as a man who is involved in engineering in various areas in the country. Before I get into what I want to say, however, I commend to the Government the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren). Undoubtedly one way in which Government money could be used now rather than in the lavish ways suggested by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is by getting study contracts going on new potential development industries. This is a very important idea.
Several years ago, when we were in opposition, I put forward a case for the need for us to get into the oceanographic business, to do research, development and application there. There was a great deal of talk about it but nothing happened. Today most of the machinery and application in the North Sea is American plant. I believe that this was an incredible dereliction of possibilities by the last Government.
I want to turn now to the real problem which faces us. I believe that the decline in our heavy engineering can be pinpointed from 1965 onwards. A mass of statistics has been produced about investment, the number of machine tools installed and the reduction of employment in our traditional labour intensive industries—mining, engineering, aircraft and heavy transport—but I want to produce a new thought which I do not think has been published before. It is perhaps the best way of measuring the situation which has developed is by the consumption of electrical power at work load average throughout the country. I agree that the peak load has risen enormously because of the huge number of cookers, television sets, heaters and so on which we now all possess in the affluent society. But one of the most notable figures that one can study is that of the standard loading since 1965, which has remained almost constant—that is to say, the amount of electrical power we are using has not increased very much since then.
I believe that the graphic picture is one of a constant flat trajectory. The growth, where growth has arisen, has been not in heavy industry but in light engineering and service industries. This is the main problem facing those of us

taking part in the debate. It is very well borne out by the figures of what the Central Electricity Generating Board has been purchasing over this period. Let us look at its order rate for distribution switchgear.
In 1964 it was at a rate of £30 million per annum. Over the period from 1969 to 1971 it dropped to the annual average rate of £12 million for 1971—at 1964 prices, a rate of £8 million. For transformer switchgear, the figures are just as bad, and those for heavy transmission transformers are even more devastating. In 1965 the rate of ordering was £22 million per annum. In 1970 it was £5 million and in 1971 it was £2 million. No wonder there is unemployment in a town like Stafford, which produces the finest transformers and heavy and light switch-gear in the world. This is as good a measure as any of the problems facing us. The increase in the gross domestic product has been almost wholly in light and service industries, using less power and producing more units at a more profitable cost.
There are some, including the Economist, who suggest that all that is necessary is to achieve a general growth in the economy and all will be well. It is also suggested that all can be put right by the massive retraining programme which the Government will announce tomorrow. Both these proposals are very useful and excellent. The trouble is that they have only a marginal effect on the huge investment not simply in machines but in people and skills engaged in our heavy engineering, aircraft, heavy electric and other traditional, labour-intensive industries which have made this country famous throughout the world. I believe that this is the measure of the problem facing us.
At this point I want to say something which I believe to be important when I allude to what happened under the last Government. I believe that every Government must avoid any unnecessary acceleration of latent structural change, but this happened in a devastating way with the last Government's handling of the aircraft industry. It is possible for people to get together and say, "We see in the future that this country cannot afford a shipbuilding industry", or an aircraft industry or whatever it may be. But for the Government


to take action which anticipates or hastens the death of those industries is almost the height of political folly.
I take as one example the supreme folly of destroying the labour-intensive aircraft industry. If the TSR2 had been kept in being until it was clear whether the American rival, the F111, would fly instead of the TSR2 being destroyed—jigs included—which was what the last Government did, and if the P1154 had been kept as a project, we would not only have made a heavy profit in our exports, running at between £750 million and £1,000 million, but we would have kept between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs. Too much foresight by intellectual planners can be as disastrous as too little. I hope, therefore, that the present Government will not become involved in bringing forward the demise, which need not be demise at all, of some of our traditional industries. What the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said about the shipbuilding industry I take as true from him. Many of these things could be saved.
For this reason I congratulate the Government on their proposals for new shipbuilding and on placing orders for more Nimrod aircraft. But the question remains, is enough being done? Is it enough just to rely on a consumer-led boom? My fear is that in the next 18 months we are not likely to see the take-up in investment that many people imagine. In the engineering industry there is a great deal of talk about orders but it is fair to say that orders are at the moment simply not being placed.
My fear is that, if we do not act now, when we do act it will coincide, God willing, with a major pick-up in world trade and that, therefore, we could have a major overheating of the economy between 1973, 1974 and 1975. That may be politically advantageous but it would be a disaster to be forced back into a stop-go situation.
It is most important for something to be done now to increase investment and I suggest that there are two wide areas in which the Government can act. First, the Government must do much more to speed investment at home. Secondly, they must make the export of heavy industrial goods easier than it is. Our problem today in the export of heavy industrial

goods is not in our skills or our management, or even in our prices. It is frequently in the financial arrangements, in which we simply do not compete with the Japanese, the American, the French or the Germans.
It is no good just hoping for the much-needed reversal in the trend of company profits. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that one of the reasons for the downturn in investment has been the downturn in company profits, which not merely languished but diminished between 1965 and 1971. I believe that there is not enough around to make a vast jump now into the machine-tool industry and the reinvestment which should be taking place.
More than has been suggested is necessary. On 13th December I made a rather long speech on this subject and my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench said that they would look into what I suggested. However, they have not written to me about it. If they would look at it again I should be grateful, because there were some good suggestions about ways in which to speed up investment.
In spite of free depreciation, which is an advantage, I believe that the time has come to return to investment grants in selected areas. We cannot be held up by some parliamentary or political shibboleth from doing something which is clearly the fastest way in which to get investment in machine tools going again. It should not be for ever. I agree with my right hon. Friends that investment grants are not as good in the long term as other forms of allowance, but there is a crisis and orders for machine tools are dead beat and the only way in which to get the orders moving again is by having investment grants. I do not think they should be for ever, but if they were only for two years investors would jump in to get them, and if they did not jump in within that time they ought not to be able to get them.
Secondly, I hope that my right hon. Friends will consider my suggestion that when a machine tool is finally written off—and this accounts for the tremendous switching-round of machine tools which occurs in Germany and Japan—when the item is balanced and the machine tool is sold, a large part of the proceeds of


that sale ought to be regarded as not subject to taxation. That would mean a quicker turn-round and an increase in the machine-tool market.
In my speech of 13th December I agreed with many hon. Members who said that the regional employment premium must be kept for the regions and that it could not be allowed to wither away in 1974. This is especially true now that we are moving towards the Common Market. The Government ought to look much harder at relaxing the conditions for industrial development certificates. They talk about everything moving forward, about a general increase in the gross domestic product and about retraining, but the only way in which places such as Stafford and many others in the Midlands can be revived now, because of the changes in machinery techniques and in management techniques, is by arranging for the labour there to be employed, to he gainfully employed and well employed.
If I.D.C.s are refused to certain companies in the Midlands, I seriously believe that the development of those companies will occur not in the areas about which hon. Gentlemen are concerned, not in Northumberland or in Inverness, but in the Pas de Calais, where there is now high unemployment, or in the Ruhr coalfield, where 200,000 miners are threatened with the loss of their jobs. I hope that Ministers will consider that very carefully. If they do not allow I.D.C.s to go to the West Midlands, industry there will invest not northwards but in the South, in areas which are the distressed areas of Germany and the distressed areas of France and where it will get aid and help to do so. I hope that these matters will be carefully considered.
I want finally to deal with overseas trade in heavy equipment. Here we are being outgunned not industrially, price-wise or technically, but financially. As the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North suggested, Britain may no longer rule the waves, but the whole trouble is that Britain refuses to waive the rules. Everyone else does. Everyone else fills in the gaps and everyone else considers what action will be most baneficial to him. The one country which does not do that is this country. Let us show some proper national interest when considering

the small print of international agreements in exactly the way that Hermes does in Germany or as the French export guarantee organisation does. I do not want this country to be destroyed by too much piety by moth-blown civil servants.
The E.C.G.D. has to take more risks. The time has come for a review of the whole structure of our export finance to bring it into line with political and economic purposes and with unemployment, as well as with benefiting aid overseas. The developing world still needs an enormous amount of installations and as things are it will get them from the Japanese on 30 years' credit. We have to make a move, not to lose money—the E.C.G.D. has not lost a penny piece yet—but to change the structure of the arrangement.
For instance, in future the E.C.G.D. should cover sub-contract work by British firms working with European consortia. After all, we are going into Europe—or we are supposed to be—and one would have thought that the one thing we could do would be to get the E.C.G.D. to cover British firms doing sub-contracting work for British consortia, but at the moment we cannot. I have written to the Minister about that.
Secondly, E.C.G.D. should be able to cover local work—that is to say, to finance a local contract. When a sugar plant is built in Venezuela, the machinery costs £1½million but the local construction work costs £2½ million. The German Hermes and the French organisations will guarantee that kind of local construction work but all the E.C.G.D. can do is to guarantee the British exports. We have to come into line with the Europeans in that respect.
Another area in which we have to come into line with the Europeans is to offer an insurance against cost escalation. Hermes and the French offer up to 15 per cent. but we offer nothing. Lastly, we have to do some better matching, in the time span and in interest rates offered, with foreign credit organisations.
Those are steps which I seriously recommend to the Government. It is no good waiting for things to happen. If we do, not only will unemployment and depression snowball until they are even worse but this under-utilised capacity and this under-used manpower, because of


the effect of the Government's inducements to a boom, will result in an overheated economy by 1973, 1974 or 1975. There is not much time: the time for the Government to take appropriate action is now.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: It is purely fortuitous that I follow the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) in this debate. I was invited on Thursday last week to address a meeting this morning of English Electric workers who are threatened with redundancy in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. He is probably as concerned about that redundancy as anyone, but it serves to highlight the situation in the West Midlands when a company like English Electric, after being merged with A.E.I. and G.E.C., is in a parlous condition and when its order book is such that it is laying people off, not only in Stafford but throughout the West Midlands.
When I first entered the House in June, 1970, Birmingham was extremely prosperous. Given certain weaknesses, that prosperity was fairly evenly spread across the city, as across the whole of the West Midlands. For the past 40 years the prosperity of the people of Birmingham and the rest of the West Midlands had been gradually rising, with minor fluctuations, to the point which it had reached in June, 1970. But since then the situation has dramatically changed, not only in Birmingham but in the whole of the West Midlands. In Birmingham the unemployment figure has doubled and now totals 37,000 which is equivalent to 5·6 per cent. of the employable population. The same percentage applies to the West Midlands.
When I became a Member of the House the West Midlands was the third best region for employment. Now it is the third worst, exceeded only by Scotland and the Northern Region. In the City of Birmingham 8 per cent. of the population is unemployed. While the position in the West Midlands is serious the situation in Birmingham is worse. We have 27 per cent. of the working population of the West Midlands in Birmingham but 34 per cent. of the unemployment—just over one-quarter of the

working population but over one-third of the unemployed.
The situation is worse when we look at the level of vacancies in the city. There are 26 men on the unemployed register chasing each vacancy. That is unparalleled in Birmingham and has never been known in the West Midlands. An even sadder aspect is that 66 per cent. of all unemployed men have been unemployed for eight weeks or more. Unemployment is a tragedy for any region, community or individual, but it has come as a sad surprise to people in Birmingham who have enjoyed over 40 years of continuing prosperity.
The people in Birmingham—this is probably true of the West Midlands too —were entirely unprepared for this. The unions were not organised to assist; they did not know much about unemployment statistics or the placing of men or unemployment services within the unions. The same applies to the Department of Employment offices in the city and throughout the region. They had to learn an awful lot in a short time. If that city and region cannot prosper, what chances has the rest of the country?
Centred in the Midlands are some of our keenest export earners in almost every industry, principally in the industries we are discussing today. In representing Birmingham I do not represent simply any city; I represent probably the world's oldest industrial city. Birmingham, the Black Country, the Midlands, gave the world industrialism. It is now being hit by the second wave of a process of industrial change that has hit first our basic industries such as coal-mining, shipbuilding, textiles and is now going forward into the manufacturing industries which predominate in the West Midlands, more so than in any other part of the country. This is shown by the fact that 60 per cent. of all employment in the area is in the engineering, metal goods and vehicles sector whereas in the rest of the country it is less than 50 per cent. and in some cases considerably less than 40 per cent.
It follows that many of the problems we face are directly attributable to our historial past. People in the West Midlands are not as prepared for change, even if it is round the corner. People are brought up in a total engineering


environment; children are almost born with a tool kit; women traditionally work alongside their men. It may be that this is partly the reason why the region has some in-built inability to change and attract new industries. It is finding it difficult to attract even modern forms of engineering. The Government must learn from the many mistakes that successive Governments have made when dealing with the rapid decline in Britain's traditional industries which have led to problems in the coal industry, shipbuilding and textiles. The lesson is that when these industries go into decline, Governments must act at every stage to protect the livelihood and well-being of communities that have lived for generations with these basic industries at the centre of employment opportunities in their area.
If the Government cannot help or are reluctant to do so, a community can do precious little to help itself. I hope that in the West Midlands, in dealing with what I am sure will be the continuing problem of the second wave of industrial change—which might accelerate when we enter the Common Market—we will look seriously at our way through what is sure to be a long, hard and bitter struggle to accommodate change.
It is not just that aspect of employment and industry in the West Midlands that has caused the present difficulties. Many others were put to me and other people at a conference which I organised in the City of Birmingham on 14th January. That conference was attended by every section of industry, the University of Birmingham, trade and commerce, trade unions—everyone with an interest in the welfare of the citizens of Birmingham. It was rather heartening, at a time when there is a great deal of cynicism about public life and in particular politics, that everyone who attended believed that unemployment was a pernicious evil that we in political life should do our best to get rid of at the earliest opportunity.
That did not prevent people from being critical of government at central and local level, trade unions and industry. As a result of the conference a working party was established when we got down to the job of putting forward solutions to local and central government. A number of reasons were given, quite apart from

the historical ones, as to why we were finding difficulties in the West Midlands. It was unanimously agreed that the Government bear the prime responsibility for the level of demand within the economy.
We were addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) who has admitted that the last Government made a mistake when forecasting the projected levels of demand within the economy. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the Government were wrong. I believe, and the conference in Birmingham believed, that the Government have not accurately gauged the potential level of demand in the economy. I hope that before the Budget, or at the latest in the Budget, the Government will take measures actively to stimulate demand.
We in the West Midlands can point to continuing uncertainty about the likely effects of our entry to the European Economic Community. It was interesting that at a chamber of commerce luncheon in Birmingham which I attended with other Labour Members on Friday not one leader of commerce in Birmingham, including the president, could say categorically that Birmingham or the West Midlands generally would benefit from Britain's entry to the E.E.C. On the contrary, doubts were expressed about future employment in the city and in the region when we go in.
I hope that the Government will consider carefully the possible effects of our entry on regions like the West Midlands which will have to compete directly with the washing machine manufacturers of Italy, the motor car manufacturers of France and the chemical manufacturers of Germany. Perhaps in time, a decade or more, Britain will find her place in the Common Market. I hope that she does, even though I voted against entry. But we can by no means be certain that in the short term the benefits which have been held out by the Government and others will follow.
Inflation has hit industry in the West Midlands, particularly the labour-intensive industries. The cost of labour has increased. It was made clear at the conference and at the chamber of commerce meeting on Friday that industrialists are looking to labour as the quickest, surest and easiest method of


containing rising costs. There is the question of over-manning, with labour being thrown on the market. There is a different balance of forces in the economy, and industrialists are more prepared to get rid of surplus labour.
There is the question of restructuring, of which we have had a great deal in the West Midlands. It has affected the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone. People in Birmingham and other parts of the West Midlands were affected by the A.E.I.G.E.C. merger. It will be a good thing in the long term, but I am sure that many people who were made redundant and were given "fat' cheques as a result thought that they would find employment immediately. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
A large metal manufacturing firm, Delta Metals, has been shutting down factories throughout the City of Birmingham and reorganising its manufacturing and distribution capacity. B.S.A. has closed major factories in Birmingham. British Leyland, after the merger in 1966, has gone through a long process of rationalisation in almost every sector—employment, manufacturing capacity, technique, and so on. All these things have hit an economy which was operating at a near zero growth rate. It was inevitable that labour would suffer.
Then there is the economic philosophy of the Government. They have either watered it down or departed from it. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry went about his job in a violent way initially. We heard about "lame ducks", "subsidised incompetence", and so on. The philosophy got across to the board room, whether it was intended or not, and industrialists believed that they should tackle pressing problems in the spirit laid down by the Secretary of State—"When in doubt, fire." That might be disputed by the Government, but, unfortunately, Governments of both political parties have a habit of creating economic and social climates and before long people believe them and act in accordance with what they say or do.
The pattern of world trade is changing. It was a popular joke at one time that if we bought a candlestick in Cairo or a pair of brass snakes in Delhi we would,

on turning them upside down, find the imprint "Manufactured in Birmingham." That is no longer true. At the lunch which I attended on Friday, having had a pleasant meal in the dining room I examined the cutlery which appeared to be made of Sheffield stainless steel. I turned it over and looked at the imprint, which read "Made in Hong Kong." I pointed this out and there was some laughter about it. Apparently, it was believed when the cutlery was bought that it had been manufactured in Sheffield, but no doubt the firm, Vintners, which had its mark stamped on it, finds it cheaper, more economic and more profitable to have it manufactured in Hong Kong and then sell it in this country.
The changing pattern of world trade hit the shipbuilding, textile and many other basic industries. It has now hit industry in the West Midlands, and, despite the protective wall which the E.E.C. will put round us, goods from under-developed countries will come through that wall and will affect areas like Birmingham and, no doubt, the South-East in a profound way.
Because of the low demand for labour, recruitment in the West Midlands has been affected. Many thousands of young people in the West Midlands are unemployed. Last year in one area in Birmingham about 40 school-leavers failed to find employment.
That is the picture in the West Midlands. There are many other reasons why we have high unemployment. Stripped of sloganising and examined in the cold light of day, it is a massive problem which can be tackled effectively only by the Government. But that presupposes that the Government are prepared to take on the task. When the Conservative Party took office, judged by its pronouncements the competitive forces of the market place alone would solve our economic problems. I hope that the Government have put that philosophy behind them.
I commend to the Government a series of short-term measures to deal with unemployment. The aim would be to mount a massive programme of public works: first to take up the enormous amount of unemployment in the construction industries, and secondly, to generate a higher level of wealth in the local


economies. I should like to see a massive urban renewal programme. The cities of this country of ours are in many respects a disgrace. Anybody who has travelled on the continent and compared our cities with continental cities must, I feel, be ashamed at the squalor in our cities, many of which had to withstand the Second World War and should afterwards have been largely and immediately pulled down. Housing, therefore, is an area which could and should be tackled as a social need, and yet at the same time it would provide valuable employment opportunities. The roads in Birmingham are in a pretty parlous condition and could be greatly improved.
There is desperate need, too, for improvement in our schools. Announcements have been made about a renewal and rebuilding programme for primary schools, but much more could be done in knocking down and rebuilding secondary schools also. There are also the hospitals, many of them Edwardian or Victorian buildings, and certainly not the kind of buildings in which modem medical practice should be carried on.
Then there is the question of retraining. An announcement is, I believe, to be made tomorrow, but it will be a drop in the ocean compared with the size of the overall problem. What one must emphasise is that we do not retrain people to put them straight into the dole queue. We must see that there are jobs for them at the end of the day and I would, on that, emphasise that in a situation like this it would be far better if men were trained or retrained on the job rather than in special institutions which we might set up for this purpose.
Another problem which the Government could tackle and immediately find a solution to is that of ordering in the capital goods sector. We are desperately short of orders in the machine tool industry. The capital goods industries at present should have greater incentives for companies to order capital goods of this kind. This would be of great assistance to the West Midlands economy.
I would urge the Government to study carefully two recent reports on the West Midlands economy and its future, one published by the West Midlands Planning Council and the other by the West Midlands Planning Authorities Conference. Both of those documents charted a course

for the West Midlands area in the coming quarter century or so. As those two documents adequately and most professionally demonstrated, we in the West Midlands need a far more diversified economy than we have. As I said earlier, 60 per cent. of the employment in the West Midlands is bound up with the motor industry, which will inevitably suffer in the coming years. The situation, to my mind, as those two reports show, calls for a more planned approach on the part of every authority concerned, but principally the Government, to ensure that in 15 or 20 years' time the West Midlands is not the industrial desert which so many of the areas of our formerly profitable and traditional industries are.
If nothing else comes out of this debate I sincerely hope that this cardinal factor does, that to deal with the rapidly changing economic and industrial structure we must have far greater planning than the Government so far have been prepared to introduce and support.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Waltham-stow, East): As a London Member I feel some trepidation in entering into a debate on unemployment since, fortunately, in Greater London the unemployment rate is about half that in the country overall. Yet there are some problems in London which deserve the attention of the House. We in the Walthamstow area—in Waltham Forest—have seen our unemployment pool double its usual figure, and perhaps it would be useful if I told the House something about our problems and put forward one or two thoughts that we have for putting the situation right.
At this moment there are 2,438 men and 215 women out of work. Normally our unemployment figure is about 1,000 persons. Since my constituency has within it a variety of works, mainly light engineering, but one factory, producing power transformers, some of the problems facing those companies are not dissimilar to the problems facing industry throughout the country.
What struck me most forcefully about the figure of our unemployed was that 38 per cent. of the men and 27 per cent. of the women were unskilled, and that one-quarter of those men and one-third of those women are within 10 years of retirement. In other words, the largest single proportion of unemployed in my


constituency and within my borough are unskilled and within 10 years of retirement. I believe that the two categories probably overlap, and present one of the most difficult and intractable categories of unemployment in this country at this moment and probably for the foreseeable future. This is a point I want to come back to later in what I have to say.
Before doing that I should remind the House of some of the problems of unemployment and redundancies which have been caused by the takeovers which other hon. Members have mentioned, and because of falling home and overseas demand. In particular we have seen three major companies either close down or in course of closing down. One of them, B.X.L., has closed down. One, Micanite, was involved in the G.E.C.A.E.I. merger and is being phased out, as is Ever-Ready in the not far distant future. The closing down of B.X.L. meant the unemployment of 900 people, and the closing down of Every-Ready will mean another 600. There has been a cut back at London Electric, a company involved in making electric wires for industry. These are all considerable blows, as anyone will appreciate, within a single London borough.
So here I feel I should pay a particular tribute to the employment office in Walthamstow. It is a fact that most, if not all, of those people who have found themselves either declared redundant or unemployed within the area are being or have been absorbed into other industries in the area. The site offices which the employment office has set up at Micanite, B.X.L. and Ever-Ready have proved a particularly effective way of meeting unemployment before it has come about, because once a redundancy or unemployment notice has been given to an employee the site office has taken action and, using the London job bank, has been able to assist him before he actually found himself out of a job.
A man who has lost his job in his own locality will often be faced with having to take a job outside his locality which will involve him in travelling and the disruption of the life he has grown used to. This is a hardship and involves a change in family routine. It is therefore, better if we can maintain the number of jobs within the local industries. Therefore, rather on the lines of my right hon.
Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), I make a plea for Hawker Siddeley Power Transformers, which is far and away the largest company in my constituency, employing 1,000 people.
That company is one of the main suppliers of power transformers in the United Kingdom, and its order book depends to the extent of 65 per cent. on orders from the Central Electricity Generating Board. Recently the C.E.G.B. has allowed its 54,000 mW programme, which was due to be finished in 1970–71, to slip to 1976–77. As my right hon. Friend said, this has made a great difference to the number of orders being placed for power transformers. Indeed, it has meant a drastic cut-back which is having a worrying effect on Hawker Siddeley Power Transformers.
Whilst I appreciate that the C.E.G.B. will no doubt argue that it has adequate power for its foreseeable demands, certain of our older power stations are producing electricity at about four times the cost of the modern 550 mW power stations our older power stations produce electricity at about 2p per unit, against ½p per unit in the newer power stations.
Although electricity demand necessarily reflects the requirements of our production industry, so that the slowing down in industrial growth is no doubt reflected in the C.E.G.B.'s programme change, I cannot help feeling that at a time when the rate of electricial expansion in West Germany is running at 8·75 per cent. and ours at only 5·25 per cent. the anticipated demand to which all our forecasts point should persuade the C.E.G.B. to bring forward its load requirement ahead of that demand. Indeed, rather than let the programme slip to 1976–77, I suggest the C.E.G.B. might re-think it, bring forward the target date and start placing orders now to meet that target. If this thought commends itself to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I hope he will exhort the C.E.G.B. to think about recasting its timetable within a period of months. I understand that there is a pressing need in the industry to know what the likely demand will be, and its future programme and the amount of labour it will require are tied up with those orders.
The company to which I have referred is also concerned about its competitive


position after our accession to the European Economic Community. From that date onwards it believes it will be free to compete alongside European manufacturers for orders throughout the area of the 10 nations, but the company has a sinking feeling that it may not find itself in fair competition. Although this feeling may be no more than the natural doubt of any company that finds itself in a new competitive rôle, some reassurance is needed. It would be a tragedy if the firm found itself competing in this country against French and German manufacturers on a fair basis, while in Western Europe the dice were loaded against it.
I suppose all our debates on unemployment turn on whether the Government's forecast of a boom to come is accurate, or whether we are "Waiting for Godot" and remembering that Mr. Godot never comes. Generally speaking, no attempt to expand an economy shows much effect for 18 months and, therefore, if in a mood of optimism I say that our 18 months are up and the boom should start, it is because I genuinely believe it.
If I ask my industrialists when were the beginnings of the unemployment which is now so massive in our midst, they say that it started in 1967 with the realisation that, because of economic stringency, industry would have to tighten its belt, and one way of doing this was by looking at labour costs. If that is so, what we are seeing is not born of this Administration but the end of what started as long ago as 1967.
Employers all say now that the cost of labour is a consideration which weighs more heavily in their minds than ever before, and that what happened in 1967 was both a lesson and a shock, and that industry required that shock to produce the shake-out of the surplus labour that it was carrying. It was a shock which they now welcome because they realise that they were overstaffed, and it is a lesson which has made them determined not to re-accumulate the labour force that they have so painfully slimmed down. This means that the concept of labour-intensive industries is probably a thought of the past and not of the future, and that, in an economy which is controlled by fierce competition and narrow profit margins, we must get used to an

industry that wishes to remain slim and efficient and sees surplus labour as something against which it should be continuously on its guard.
The aircraft industry has been mentioned several times in this debate. That industry is an exact example of a labour intensive industry which has slimmed down its labour force and has no intention of taking on additional labour unless it really requires it. We can talk about the projects that that industry should have and argue that the Govern-men have not yet stated a new policy for it, though, to be fair, we must remember that the Marshall Committee is looking into the industry. But anybody in that industry today is realistic enough to admit that the aerospace industry throughout the world has over-capacity, that we have no right to expect ours to be the exception, and that the industry may contract further. However, whatever else it will not be, it will be more efficient than it has ever been in the past.
It has been said in this debate that unemployment is looked upon as something of a social stigma by the person who suffers it. We must armit that it damages a man's personal dignity and also the man himself because he imagines that in the eyes of his family he no longer stands in their midst as the breadwinner. By the same token when a man is unemployed and is exhorted to be retrained, he may feel that the concept of retraining suggests that in some way he is not up to the job he has lost and therefore must be retrained for something else.
I believe we must get away from these outworn and outdated concepts and must seek to show our labour force that if there is to be a dynamic and changing economy, then a man may well have more than one job during his working life and that this will become the pattern rather than the exception. We must get across the idea that when unemployment or redundancy occurs, this may be a time for a man to acquire a new skill, and this is where retraining comes in.
I look forward with great enthusiasm to tomorrow's statement on the industrial training boards and on retraining in general. I believe those boards have begun to create something dynamic in our whole approach to our work force. We


talk about a right to work. We should also talk about a right to be trained or retrained to work. If we just say that a man has one skill and if he cannot use it he must be doomed to unemployment, then we are not doing our job in the House of Commons. A man or woman should have the right to feel that the Government are seeking to develop their skills to the maximum and, if that is what is required, to place at their fingertips a new skill.
If retraining and more training is the right way to get the best out of our labour force, it is a different problem when one is dealing with a person who has only 10 years to serve before he retires. It could be said that retirement should be brought forward to help those people, but that may be easier said than done. We must ask ourselves whether retraining is worth while if somebody has such a short time to go before retirement, or whether we should seek some other way of finding a use for the person's skills. If it is a question of declaring an older or younger man redundant, it might be better to make the younger man redundant because he is worth retraining and will be able to hold on to a new skill for the rest of his working life. The older person may find that he cannot get another job.
However, I am convinced that the American idea of paying premiums to industry to take on a proportion of those who cannot get jobs is not satisfactory. The Americans have found that the net result of having this sort of premium is that people are taken on who are unemployable and industry holds on to them because it is not willing to go through litigation to get rid of them. The answer may well be to go in for something on the lines of State subsidies to industry to encourage it to take on people who otherwise would not find employment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should like to draw attention to the fact that if hon. Members speak at great length it is impossible for the Chair to call all those who have waited throughout the debate.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I am mindful of the remarks made by the hon. Member for

Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), and, although I am tempted to take up some of them, I will resist that temptation and get on with the job before me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The first thing to do is to give the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland some information about the employment of shipbuilding and shiprepairing workers in industry. I quote from paragraph 27 of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations:
In May, 1967 the numbers employed in shipbuilding on our definition were a little over 80,000 and the numbers in shiprepairing a little over 45,000 making a total of about 126,000. The fall in numbers over the three years 1967 to 1970 was therefore about 6½ per cent. in shipbuilding and 23 per cent. in ship-repairing.
It goes on
In shipbuilding the biggest part of the fall in numbers took place between 1959 and 1962, by which time it was probably about 80,000.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to give us some eclectically chosen figures and say that they include ship repairing, shipbuilding and boatbuilding and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. The facts are that shipbuilding, particularly in Scotland, has had a reduced labour force and this is what one would expect in terms of the increase in capital investment. If, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, we accept the idea that this is not a declining but a growth industry, then we should be seeing some upturn in terms of investment activity in the United Kingdom and taking a larger share of the total world trade.
Let me give the Secretary of State a warning on the complacent and contemptuous Amendment that is before the House today. This contempt is seen not only among hon. Members on this side of the House but in every speech from the Government benches. We have seen no confidence on the part of hon. Members opposite that they believe that the Government's economic strategy will provide these industries with the kind of growth potential they deserve.
The difficulty in dealing with Scotland and the regions is that if we seek to highlight unemployment we shall perhaps erode confidence. Yet at the same time, in face of the harshness of the


unemployment situation, we must ventilate our grievances through the democratic processes.
Let me deal with the question of Japan, which now has some 50 per cent. of world output and its slogan is to achieve 80 per cent. by 1980. The Japanese will not do that without Government intervention. To indicate the degree of that intervention, I should like to quote from the Shipbuilding and Shipping Record of 16th July, 1971 how the Japanese have structured their orders:
During the last five years, a third of Japanese export orders was for E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. shipowners. But not a single ton has been built in Europe for the ' rising sun ' flag since the beginning of the century.
Is that the way to cook the market? Is that free trade, or is it direct Government intervention?
I am all in favour of playing to the rules, but the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that the advantages of Hunterston—and we applaud the announcement this afternoon about the ore terminal—relate to getting bulk cargoes of all types. This means relating capacities to achieve cheap bulk cargoes to the shipping industry. This is what the Japanese have done. They have looked at their economy and seen that they are importers of bulk cargoes. Therefore, they are capable of cooking world order books, carriage rates and shipbuilding prices. Although the Japanese moaned when the Europeans retaliated and gave fixed-price contracts, they followed suit and, even with the revaluation of the yen, are still giving fixed-price contracts. That is why I have asked the Secretary, of State a number of times whether this Government feel that British shipowners would be capable of giving fixed price contracts for a reasonable time ahead. I doubt it, not because of the competence of the industry, but because we have great difficulty in competing with the Japanese and with the structure of the Japanese market.
We need a commitment that the Government will develop the port facilities at Hunterston not just for an ore terminal but for other cargoes. We want from the Secretary of State an assurance that if there are any port facilities developed at Foulness, Dungeness or anywhere else in the South-East, he will oppose the proposals in the Cabinet and resign if

his opposition is not carried. Certainly he ought to do that. That is what should happen if these developments are carried out.
Let me now deal with the one bright spark in the Scottish economy about which the Secretary of State speaks at every conceivable opportunity. I refer, of course, to North Sea oil. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go to the conference at Aviemore in February and say what the Government intend to do to give Scotland a broader-based petroleum technology. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of speaking pleasant platitudes to industry, will say what the Government intend to do. We know that there are possibilities in developing rigs, and so on, but we must also recognise the immense possibilities in the construction of highly specialised ships. Whether they are built on the Clyde, Upper or Lower, or elsewhere is not my concern. There might be a case for liquefied natural gas carriers to be built on the Clyde. However, at the height of the U.C.S. crisis we had an assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the proposed feasibility study would look at the market for liquefied gas carriers. The Ministers in that Department should know that this is a growth market and a highly complex one. Other countries are building liquefied natural gas carriers. On behalf of the industry, we want to know whether the Government are urging shipowners to have these vessels built in the United Kingdom.
The Government have placed some orders in terms of defence contracts, and some yards on the Clyde and in the East of Scotland have obtained these orders. However, in Dundee especially there is still a regional crisis of high unemployment. Although Robb Caledon has received orders, there is still a possibility of redundancy in yards associated with the Group.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that unless Robb Caledon gets an order from the Admiralty very shortly a very serious redundancy problem will arise in Burntisland where two or three years ago the yard went into liquidation with the loss of about 800 jobs? Now there are only 80 persons employed there, and even their jobs are


in jeopardy unless something is done very soon.

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend indicates a specific problem. It may be that the good offices of the Department can be used to ensure that some of the work that Robb Caledon takes on board is dispersed not only to the Burntisland yard but to the Dundee yard, in view of the present high level of unemployment. The male rate is running at 12·3 per cent., and the local figure is 9·8 per cent. of the insured population of Dundee and Broughty Ferry.
I want an assurance from the Government that this complicated type of vessel will be built in the United Kingdom. The relationship between naval and civil construction for this type of vessel is very close. Our naval expertise has been used to give a British company some advice so that it could have this type of ship built in France. Shell has ordered seven liquefied natural gas carriers but they are not being built in the United Kingdom. Instead, they are being built in France. Future ships should be built in the United Kingdom.
We tend to look upon unemployment and some of the problems of retraining in terms of statistics. They are not statistics. A young man sat opposite me at my surgery on Saturday morning. He is unemployed, and he is getting £6·45. This is his budget: £4·50 goes to his parents, El goes on travel and fees for further education, and 50p goes to a shoe club, where he pays for clothing. He has 45p to himself. He came to see me to ask whether he could get assistance in the form of some payment towards his further education fees so that he could sit an examination. That is the face of unemployment in Scotland, and it is no use our talking in platitudes about retraining to young men like that who are the salt of the labour force. I am sure that other hon. Members can relate similar stories which show that young unemployed people are willing to be retrained and go into other industries if the jobs are available.
We have to cure this problem of unemployment, and I challenge the Government to state that they are committed to full employment and to the right to

work. If they do not, the democratic structure of this nation is in peril.

7.56 p.m.

Miss Joan Hall: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) is no longer present, because I was interested when he spoke about the cutlery at the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce coming from Hong Kong. When I visit various firms I am always interested to see how much of their machinery comes from overseas. Employers talk to me about their problems and difficulties, and always I inquire why the firm has bought its machinery from overseas. In reply I usually get a rather coy grin and the explanation that it was not produced in this country, that it was cheaper to buy abroad or that the foreign supplier gave a better delivery date. To such a statement I reply, "Are you not sure that there is not a lesson to be learnt about the reason for your problems: someone is producing cheaper and giving a better delivery date?" Often I am surprised how readily people agree. Some of the firms which complain most are some of the biggest supporters of foreign industry in preference to British-produced goods.
I make no apology for talking about unemployment as it affects my constituency, especially in engineering. On 10th January of this year, the official unemployment figures for the wholly unemployed in the Keighley employment area were 1,866. That figure represents 6·4 per cent. of men and women workers, and 9·2 per cent. of men. It is the highest figure since the war. In my area since the war there has been virtually no unemployment, and it comes as a greater shock and a more serious problem to those who suddenly find themselves unemployed than to those in areas which unfortunately have experienced higher unemployment over the years. I may say that the unemployment is mainly in textiles and engineering.
I want to raise a number of points in connection with unemployment in Keighley. The first is that we have a tradition of good labour relations. A number of people have found themselves out of jobs because people in other parts of the country have demanded too much out of a cake which does not grow. It has not been the jobs of those other people which have been put in jeopardy;


it has been those of my constituents. We are in a fairly low-wage area. My constituents probably work for companies which are parts of larger concerns. When other people grab too much, certain areas have to be shut down and frequently the people who have not grabbed have to pay the price. That has happened to certain people in my area.
I also regret, because I do not think it has been advantageous to Keighley, the mad rush over the last few years for mergers and the consequent thought that because something was big it was automatically the best. For too long we have had too much discriminating legislation against small companies. This has particularly hit companies in textiles. What has happened is that a close company has had to sell out and a large concern has taken over with a fanfair of trumpets saying that the jobs are secure and it will modernise the mill. Sure enough, five or eight years later, due to a change in world conditions, the factory in Silsden or in Keighley will be shut down and very good employees will find themselves out in the very cold unemployment market. I hope that the Government will take due note of the Bolton Committee's excellent report which has made some good suggestions, some of which have been put into effect; but a great many more will need to be implemented to help the smaller companies, particularly in Keighley.
When one examines the unemployment figures, for all our civil servants and all the forms which people have to fill in, it is difficult to get a real breakdown showing how they affect one's own area. One gets a total, but what does it consist of? It would be much more important to have a breakdown than the over all figure.
I find that older people particularly have little desire—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) mentioned this point—to change from one industry to another when they have spent their working lives in one sphere and probably in one factory, because often it means that they have to travel further afield. The skilled man particularly is usually prepared to wait until something turns up in his own locality. This often goes on for as long as six months, when the earnings-related benefit comes to an end. Of course while he has his redun-

dancy payment—which, if he has worked for one company for many years, can amount to a goodly sum—he can hang on longer. But at the end of six months, if he has not got a job he has to look further afield.
One of the biggest assets which encourages a worker to change his attitude is the wife who is left at home, who gets fed up with the man being round the house all day. At the end of six months, particularly if she is working and their income suddenly drops, she will probably say, "Get a job. Stop saying you want it in your own skill. Just get a job." This is one of the greatest contributory factors to getting people to change from one occupation to another.

Mr. David Lambie: Will the hon. Lady tell us what the unemployment rate was in her constituency in June, 1970?

Miss Hall: I do not have that figure. I have only the present figures. The more figures one gets, the more complicated they become. I have the figures for the present situation in Keighley. That is what interests me now, not history.
I should like to turn to the more serious deep-seated problem which has much longer-term serious consequences, namely, the unemployment of people over the age of 50. This matter was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). From the figures for Keighley it is difficult to estimate, but it is believed that half the unemployed people in Keighley who have been unemployed the longest are over 50. The Government's announcement about retraining will help. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East on this score. If the retirement age is 65, a maximum of 15 years' working can certainly give a very good return. After all, many people wish to continue working after they reach the age of 65. I certainly do not believe that because a man is over 50 he should not be retrained. I hope that the announcement tomorrow will help this class of person.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: My point was that I suspected that industry will think such people are not worth retraining and that the State might take the same view.

Miss Hall: I thank my hon. Friend. My next point is that often those over 50 are a great deal more reliable, more honest and loyal—[An HON. MEMBER: "More honest?"]—definitely—than some of the younger people who are more inclined to take than to give. Many employers tell me that they are better than some of the younger people.
I am interested in the retirement age. I have had a letter from the Keighley Trades Council which asks for the retirement age to be reduced to 60 for men and to 55 for women. I disagree on one point. I think that it should be the same for both men and women. I do not think that there should be discrimination between the sexes on retirement age. I think that the time will soon come when it will be lowered from 65 to 60.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who is not in his place at the moment, mentioned the importance of industrial development certificates. We have far too much rigidity. We have special development, development, intermediate or full employment areas. Surprising as it may seem, Keighley is in the full employment class with an unemployment rate of 6·4 per cent.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Will the hon. Lady tell us whether Keighley had full employment in 1970 when the present Government came to office?

Miss Hall: As I said earlier, I am talking about January, 1972. Keighley now has this high unemployment rate and it is a so-called full employment area. We do not ask to have our status changed; we ask that those companies which are successful and want to expand should be allowed to do so. One particular company in my constituency, which has expanded over the last nine months and taken on 200 employees, is very successful and wishes to expand further, but it has been told that it must go to a town in a so-called development area, where it already has a branch, where the unemployment rate is much less than in Keighley and where the Department of Employment has admitted that the appropriate type of labour is not available. If we were not in the Chamber of the House of Commons I would be very rude. What I will say

is that when a successful firm is not allowed to expand when and where it wishes, we are in a barmy situation. I hope that we might have a more fluid situation regarding development areas and I.D.C.s.
I should like to end with some comments about the machine tool industry because this plays a very important part in my constituency. The main problem is the stagnation of the home market. I should like to put forward a suggestion, which I hope the Minister will consider and answer. This has been put to me by many manufacturers. What is going on in the Royal Ordnance factories? Why is so little known? Why cannot we have more re-equipping? How many machines in the Royal Ordnance factories are British and how many are foreign? Is there not a potential here for modernisation which at the same time could help the depressed British machine tool industry? It seems to be a sphere rather of the unknown. Many manufacturers would like a bigger and better opportunity for putting British machinery into the Royal Ordnance factories.
I should also mention the Common Market. At present the duty on numerically controlled lathes is 8 per cent., and on standard lathes the duty is 7 per cent. to all E.E.C. countries. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Northfield, my machine tool and engineering people look forward to the challenge, but they are worried about the unknown subject of V.A.T. They do not pay purchase tax on machine tools, and it is increasingly difficult for them to plan and budget ahead not knowing what the situation will be when V.A.T. is introduced. I appreciate that that is not something on which the Minister can pronounce tonight, but this uncertainty should be voiced because it makes it difficult to plan for the long term.
There is uncertainty in engineering generally because of the collapse of the national pay and disputes procedure between the Engineering Employers' Association and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. The engineering unions have put in a pay claim for an increase of about £700 million. The employers say that that would add 40 per cent. to their costs and increase prices by up to 15 per cent., and negotiations have broken down. The


situation is serious for the engineering companies. I hope that the problem will be resolved because at the end of the day the people who suffer are all those who are involved in engineering—that is, in almost every constituency but particularly mine.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: It gives me a certain amount of pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) because my early career in local politics was in Keighley. Indeed, I had the pleasure of serving on that local council for about four and a half years. Because this is a short debate I must leave the pleasantries there.
The hon. Lady says that she makes no apology for raising the problem of unemployment in Keighley. I can understand her chagrin, because Keighley had not known unemployment, even during the 'thirties, until about 18 months ago. It is since the hon. Lady's Government took charge in 1970 that there has been this escalation of unemployment in areas such as Keighley.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) spoke at length about the unemployment problem in Birmingham, and he makes no apology for doing so. The apology he ought to make is for having to speak at all today, because until 18 months ago unemployment in his area was almost unknown. There is no doubt that the Government have something to answer for.
What is the background to this remarkable number of unemployed? It is not that the Government took on a £800 million deficit in the balance of payments. It was not that they took on something which had to be put right. They took over the largest balance of payments credit that any incoming Government have ever had, and by a remarkable amount of ingenuity they have managed to bring about unemployment to a level which means that my colleagues from the North-East, Scottish and Welsh areas, who used to vie with one another for the eye of the Chair in debates of this nature, are having to compete with hon. Members from Birmingham, Keighley and elsewhere. That is the truth of the matter, and we have to look in some depth at why that has happened.
The basis of the real hardship of unemployment is still tied up with regional policy. I believe that when, as we hope, the basic economy is given some lift, the problems to which hon. Members have referred will quickly be solved by a soak-up. That has generally been the case during the periods of boom and bust of the post-war era, but in the development areas the problem has remained. When the "Birminghams" and areas in the South-East started to catch cold, the regions caught pneumonia.
During their period of office the Labour Government, in their wisdom, introduced a system of investment grants. The idea was to bring new industries to areas and to coax to those areas industries from Birmingham and the South-East. In my region alone about 120,000 mining jobs have disappeared, to say nothing of reductions in shipbuilding, engineering, and various ancillary trades.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) dealt with the shipbuilding industry. On Wear-side we are pretty proud of our shipbuilding complex. It has managed to keep its nose above water, due to good staff, good management, good relationships and so on. Apart from the SD14s providing continued employment, I do not think that the shipbuilding industry can look forward to a great deal of extra employment, so we have to look for something different.
If we consider the problem in terms of development area policy, I think that we have to judge the matter on results. I think that the Minister would agree that that is fair. Let us consider what happened in the past and what is taking place now. One of the damning figures of the Government's policy came out last Friday showing the result of the Government's I.D.C. policy. Dealing with the Northern Region the Newcastle Journal said:
Area covered by I.D.C.s takes a tumble
and it went on to say that the areas dropped by 27 million sq. feet last year. It is the figure released by the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that the Minister will accept it as correct.
In my own region the percentage of I.D.C.s dropped steadily during the year, from 1·7 in the first quarter, to 1·5 in the second quarter, and down to 0·7 in the


third and last quarters. The figure for this year is 4·6 per cent., compared with 7·8 per cent. in 1970, 9·2 per cent. in 1969, and 11·4 per cent. in 1968. If those are not damning figures about the effect of the Government's policy on industrial development certificates, I do not know what are.
The Minister may say that that is a trend, that there has been a general rundown. I cannot say that, because in October, 1970, the Government made a deliberate policy decision to change over from investment grants to investment allowances, and from that time the figures began to take a deep dive. From that moment onwards there was a big change in the thinking of industry about moving to the development areas.
I have to charge the Government with the fact that by a policy decision they made this big difference to industry. I am not speaking purely as a politician. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the North-Eastern Development Council, which has done a study of these things. From time to time we brought outside industries to our meetings so that we could get their opinion. It was their view that the changeover was too drastic. There was no time lag. The Government did not say that the change would take effect from, say, a date 12 months hence. Instead, they announced that they were changing from grants to allowances immediately.

Mr. Albert Booth: At a stroke.

Mr. Bagier: As my hon. Friend says, "at a stroke". That group of three words is a saying which I am sure the Government will regret for the whole of their period of office, short as that may be.
When we brought outside industry to our meetings we liked to think of what could be done in a practical way to help. Recently a meeting was held with representatives from industry in the North-East and from organisations such as Anglo Great Lakes Corporation Ltd., George Angus & Co. Ltd., Caterpillar Tractor Co. Ltd., Clarke Chapman John Thompson Ltd., Foster Wheeler John Brown Boilers Ltd., I.C.I. Ltd., Plessey Telecommunications Group Ltd., British

Railways, and some of the nationalised industries. We came to the conclusion that there were certain things that the Government could do. I will try to be constructive as well as critical.
I appeal to the Minister to ask his Department to give the go-ahead immediately for the Sizewell B scheme, which could have a tremendous effect on employment in the North-East, and also for the Redcar steel complex scheme. The Government should also accelerate their capital expenditure in British Petroleum, in its exploration of the North Sea for oil and gas. This also would have its side effects on the steel industry.
I would also ask the Government, in these huge orders, which take a long time to come to fruition, to stop doing things in stops and starts and to start thinking in terms of programmes five, 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, rolling programmes which could give people employment prospects and work in these very large industries which should not be subject to the whims of government.
The Government should also consider how much thought, finance and direction they can put into the fight against environmental pollution, something from which the North-East and Scotland, which both did their share in providing the wealth of this nation, have suffered for a long time. It is not too much to ask for public money to put that right.
We have argued at great length about the merits of investment grants as opposed to allowances. Why can we not have a little elasticity, and use both? Why not ask industry which it would prefer—

Mr. Dan Jones: They made a decision.

Mr. Bagier: Yes, but the Government made this decision without any consultation with industry. In the name of the unemployed, will the Government now reconsider?

Mr. Jones: What I meant was that industry has been asked and the C.B.I. is in favour of grants, not allowances.

Mr. Bagier: I could not agree more—

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): indicated dissent.

Mr. Bagier: The Minister shakes his head, but in our consultations with local industry we have come to the conclusion that there is a case for grants in some cases and allowances in others. I am asking for less rigidity. The Government should think of the unemployed.
Parts of our problem is a continuing shake-out. Every week we see news of fresh redundancies. I read in the Newcastle Journal that Vickers is to lay off some more, that 181 men will be laid off by an engineering firm following 215 sackings last month, and that another 80 men were made redundant at Stocks-field recently. This is a continuing factor to which the Government must face up.
The regions do not lightly view the prospect of unemployment. The Minister should examine these detailed cases that I have mentioned, including the tremendous spending power of the Government, which can influence the regions, infrastructure and industrial orders. If they think more about people and less about the statistics, they may come up with some of the right answers.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) will, I know, excuse me if I do not follow his argument too deeply except to take up his point about our needing fewer statistics in our speeches. I want to make a brief speech and deal with one specific item which may help us in our attempts to find a long-term solution to the unemployment problem. This is not a constituency speech or even really a regional speech. I want, however, to take as an example one industry which can help—the tourist industry.
Many speakers in today's debate and our debate last week have emphasised the need for changed attitudes and the need to realise that we should look more to the creation not just of new and more jobs but also of jobs in industries which have not figured largely up to now in the preoccupation of the Government.
I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings

(Mr. Warren) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) about the need to look for the development of new industries, which clearly will need labour. One of the hardest things that we have to face is that, however many opportunities the Government may provide for retraining, far too many people will not turn their minds to pastures new. The Government, if they have a duty here at all, should fight for the hearts and minds of men and women to make them realise that profitable and worthwhile employment is available in this country, but not necessarily in the traditional industries, in areas such as the North-East, in which they have always sought employment in the past.
I am not so simply referring to finding men to serve as waiters in hotels. Development of the tourist industry calls for major infrastructural works which can provide not only new but long-term and varied employment. Unemployment is a human problem. Men seek a good job, security and prospects for themselves and their families, and the tourist industry can provide these forms of security.
It is also coincidental—or perhaps not—that many of the areas of highest unemployment have great unexploited tourist potential—Wales, Scotland, the North-East and the South-West. I have a request for the Minister which I have made to him more than once before. That is, that industrial development certificate policy should not be related purely to industry in what I consider to be the old-fashioned sense of the word. Will the Minister yet again consider the idea of creating tourist development areas where Government assistance can be related to the tourist development potential?
I want to quote some figures which illustrate my point that there are jobs available in the hotel and catering industry in areas like the North-East but the tourist industry finds it difficult to attract people. Last week the Caterer and Hotel-keeper produced some information about two symposia which were held recently in Darlington and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The object of the symposia was to attract young men to the industry and to persuade them to train for long-term employment in it. In Darlington, which has 1,700 unemployed, three people turned


up for the symposium. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has over 4,000 unemployed, only 11 people turned up for the symposium. As the Caterer and Hotel-keeper says, other equally depressing results have been obtained in other parts of the country.
This leads me to ask how accurate the statistics about job availability are. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) has a Question down for Thursday, when he is
To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 100,000 unfilled vacancies in the hotel and catering industry have now been filled.
If there are 100,000 vacancies in this industry, that fact illustrates my point better than any words of mine could.

Mr. Bagier: The present job ratio in the North-East is 30 persons chasing every vacancy, whatever the notified vacancy situation is.

Mr. Adley: Are we sure that the statistics of notified job vacancies are accurate?

Mr. John Biffen: It is well known that in many employment areas prospective employers do not notify vacancies to the Department of Employment.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I have said. One company quoted in the Caterer and Hotelkeeper—namely, Swallow Hotels—has 72 vacancies for youngsters in the North-East. The controller of the company, having noted how few young people attended the symposium, is quoted as saying this:
Either the youngsters do not want to work or, more likely, the proper information about the industry is not getting to them. If we only had a chance to talk to them I am sure we could interest them in a service industry career.
We spend far too little time in government and in the House talking about the tourist industry. In the 18 months I have been in the House we have spent a great deal of time discussing the coal industry, the steel industry and the shipbuilding industry. We have never had a set debate on the tourist industry other than the occasional debate which has arisen as a result of an hon. Member being lucky in the Ballot.
Although unemployment is in many cases an attitude of mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I phrased that badly.

Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Gentleman did indeed.

Mr. Adley: Although the cure for unemployment requires a change in the attitude of mind so that people can be persuaded to take jobs in new industries, the Government have a major duty to bring about just this change in attitude of mind. I, too, look forward to the statement to be made tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Despite the amount of time that some of us in the South-West spend talking about the aircraft industry and agriculture, the catering and hotel industry is, of the local industries, the major employer of labour in the South-West. I urge my right hon. Friends to do all they can to bring to the attention of everyone on the unemployed list the availability of so many unfilled vacancies in the hotel and catering industry.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian Campbell: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) has brought to the attention of the House an industry which, I agree is often neglected, and which is of some importance in my constitutency also, but I ask him to forgive me if I concentrate more on the industrial side, as this is where our main problems lie today.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and other hon. Members opposite have spoken in favour of investment allowances and of the continuation of the regional employment premium. This has been a constant cry from our side of the House for some time, but it has been ignored by the Government until now. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government are having a change of mind on the matter.
Another matter raised several times today is the allocation of industrial development certificates. This gives considerable worry to those of us who come from special development areas or development areas, for we now see the trend to push for industrial development certificates in areas where unemployment has not been high until a short time ago. The right hon. Member for Stafford


and Stone argued that, with British entry into the E.E.C., if firms in these areas do not have permission to develop there, they will move to the Continent to set up their factories. It is one of our great worries in Scotland that there will be this movement all the time nearer to the large market on the Continent of Europe.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on his announcement about the Hunterston project today. We have been waiting for it for a long time. About three years ago I was a member of the Lower Clyde Development Group, set up by the then Labour Government in cooperation with the local authorities. It produced the Metro-Weddle Report, financed equally by the local authorities and the Government. Several excellent reports were produced, only to lie on the table all that time. We had seminars at all the universities, and there was great excitement, but it has taken the Government three years to act.
Only last year, Labour Members had a meeting with the Clyde Port Authority, which was appealing for action at that time and saying that, if the project were on the table in Holland, we would have gone ahead long ago and then looked for work. We did not need to wait until we had a particular propect to fit into it. If the deep water facilities were there, we should have attracted projects to it. I hope that this will now happen, once the scheme gets into full swing.
As time is short, I shall concentrate on one other industrial problem; namely, the state of affairs in the Plessey company, again in the news now, though for a different reason. I refer to Plessey in Alexandria. The factory, the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, was taken over from the Government in January, 1971, and within six months the Plessey company announced that it would close.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I think that the hon. Gentleman gave the wrong date. He should have said 1970, should he not?

Mr. Ian Campbell: No. There was a partial occupation, so to speak, with the two parties working side by side in 1970, and then, on 4th January, 1971, I was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), handed over the keys to Ples-

sey. Within six months, the company announced that the factory would be entirely closed.
This was a factory given away on bargain-basement terms by the Labour Government. In some ways, hindsight shows that there should have been a guarantee sought from the firm that work would continue at the factory. But, as I say, closure was soon announced. In fact, it closed in October. There was then the sit-in by the workers, which has been going on for five months.
The workers took that action to prevent removal of the machinery from the factory, and they were successful in that objective. Over the past month or so negotiations have been taking place between the workers and the new company set up by Plessey and Lyon industrial group, and we now have the happier outcome that the situation has been resolved. Plessey and Lyon together are to create a new industrial estate in the factory. A certain number of jobs has already been agreed, and an engineering firm is moving in. A joint committee has been set up, consisting of representatives of the new firm and the workers, to sponsor incoming industry that will use the machinery in the factory, which would have been removed but for the workers.
Is that the lesson for the future? Should we all have sit-ins or take-overs? The situation in the Fisher-Bendix factory is very much in our minds. There the management's action has been stayed, and the situation is to be reviewed in a year. There have been references to the U.C.S. work-in today. I am sure that the Clydebank yard and perhaps the Scotstoun yard would have gone by now but for the work-in. In all these instances the workers have given management time to pause and consider. By the action of the workers a new dimension has been added to the industrial picture.
Why should such action be necessary to make firms think? What about redundancies that go unchallenged? One of the answers to the problem was given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the debate on 24th January, when he suggested that:
…where in. the future factory closures are announced or redundancies declared,…the Government should require prior notification to


the Department concerned …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1022.]
He also said that a group representing all local interests should look into the problem and see what action can be taken to resolve it. That would give everyone a chance to consider such problems, including their social aspects. If that proposal were put into practice it would be a major step forward in the proper assessment of redundancies and closures.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) has told us something of the Plessey situation in his constituency which will be of great interest to the House. He has shared great worries with his constituents over the past few months. I know how difficult the Plessey situation has been, and I am sure that every hon. Member will join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the future for the factory is now really secure and brighter for those who work there, particularly in view of the factory's chequered history over recent years.
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the good news he gave us today about the Hunterston terminal. I hope that it may point to further development later but it is excellent news in itself. The hon. Gentleman made a very courteous and proper reference to what my right hon. Friend said but he was alone in doing so among Labour hon. Members. I was sorry to see that my right hon. Friend's statement did not even raise a smile from them, not a flicker, let alone a cheer. Perhaps the reason is that they prefer to travel hopefully rather than to arrive. But it is such a pity that as they come they trail such clouds of gloom, because the position in Scotland, although extremely serious, is not one of gloom.
I shall give some reasons why I believe that, but first I want to say something about the Opposition's Motion. Few people will pay serious attention to it, certainly in Scotland. We remember the Opposition's so-called plan for expansion in Scotland, an example of the planned economy we were to expect. In their pre-election White Paper, grandly styled

"The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970", the Labour Government held out the prospect of 60,000 new jobs in Scotland. We did not get the 60,000; we lost 82,000. The Labour Government were off target by 142,000 jobs. When the Opposition now point to the intolerably high level of unemployment in Scotland, it would be better if they were to recall that had they fulfilled the promised prospect of 1966 there would have been 142,000 more people at work in Scotland in 1970.
All that is bad enough, but the Labour Government went on to promote a surge of inflation which quickly brought unemployment in its wake. Most of our economic problems spring directly from the galloping inflation and mounting unemployment bequeathed to a sorry Britain by the Labour Government who ran away. Today's Motion by right hon. and hon. Members opposite is, in effect, a Motion of censure on themselves. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the inflation we suffered directly affected unemployment in the industries listed in the Motion because of the economic uncertainty it created. It affected employment also by producing a large shake-out of labour by industry.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) quoted correctly and quite fully from a leading article in The Times of last Saturday. I do not disagree with the point of his quotation. But the article touched on the point I have just made. It pointed out that by 1970
the large publicly owned industries had been 'shaking out' for years and the steel industry had started on the process.
Private employers, it said began a great shake-out in mid-1970. I suggest that the reason for that great shake-out was the growing effect of soaring wage settlements at the time. I suggest further that the reason for that rate of wage inflation then and later was the Labour Government's total retreat from their own prices and incomes policy in the months before the 1970 General Election.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the same leading article that I quoted. If he reads it fully he will find that the leader writer does not share his view of the bequest of inflation by the Labour Government. He says, indeed, that most of the wage increases were granted by private industry, and it is


difficult to see how it could have done so with a view to securing the re-election of the Labour Government.

Mr. MacArthur: I am not misrepresenting the article. I am giving my suggested reason for the shake-out and why it happened. I repeat that it happened because of the intolerable escalation of wage settlements created by the Labour Government's total abandonment of their prices and incomes policy in the months immediately before the 1970 General Election, when the Labour Party was trying to curry electoral favour.

Mr. James Hamilton: The Labour Government's prices and incomes policy was not supported by the then Opposition. I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself voted against it on many occasions.

Mr. MacArthur: What I remember voting against very well was the succession of orders laid by the Labour Government when they found that they had acted illegally and were requiring the House to legalise their illegality. That I did not support and never would support.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East quoted from the leading article in The Times when he said that business confidence, in the sense of new investment and willingness to create new jobs, was unusually low at the moment. It certainly is, but the critical words are "at the moment". I believe that investment will turn upwards as the Government's measures work through the economy. They must turn upwards, and no doubt this need is at the centre of the mind of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he approaches his Budget statement.
The balance in all this is very delicate, because of the narrow margin between the economic conditions required for a short-term boom and those required for long-term sustained growth. I hope that there will not be too much talk of a boom, because that would bring renewed inflation in its train and would not gain the confidence for investment that we require. The spur to true confidence is surely the prospect of cautious but sustained long-term growth.
The tax cuts of £1,400 million a year which have been introduced by the Government have started to revive the economy. The cuts in purchase tax and

S.E.T. were the first tax cuts directly affecting prices for nearly 10 years and consumer demand is rising as a result, as all the indicators show and as anyone with commercial experience knows perfectly well.
A vast injection of cash by the other Government measures to stimulate the creation of jobs is also having an effect. I suggest, however, that the extra jobs which will be created by the injection of cash into the economy by Government measures—that is, acceleration of construction projects and the like—should be regarded as measures to tide over the situation until genuine economic growth takes place. I say this because the extra projects for which these extra funds were provided have to be substantially completed by March, 1973, and the jobs are therefore largely short term, although they are needed urgently and they will ease the position until genuine growth brings about a genuine fall in unemployment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of state referred to the enormous growth in productivity. With some 400,000 fewer people at work, Britain is producing rather more than before. It is an upsurge in productivity which bodes well for future growth in Britain, but it has helped in itself to exacerbate the current unemployment position. We want higher productivity, but we also want the unemployment figures to fall.
In the preoccupation of all of us with the proper use of the resources of the country we should always remember that the greatest and most precious natural resources we have is the people of the country, and we simply cannot afford to tolerate a situation in which many hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed when they should be—and, I trust, soon will be—producing profitably for the benefit of the nation.
The fact that productivity has gone up as it has points to a problem that still remains. It is that there is a substantial margin of slack which still has to be taken up before manufacturing capacity is fully stretched. Putting aside seasonal influences, it is only at the point when manufacturing capacity is fully stretched or nearly so that we can expect the true level of unemployment to fall. Particularly in Scotland we look for growth in the United Kingdom economy because


it is only growth in the total economy that can produce growth in Scotland.
Whatever the pattern of inducement may be, it cannot bite unless industry is mobile, and it will not be mobile without the certainty of true growth. We have to face the fact, unpalatable as it may be, that the nature of employment in Britain has been changing and will continue to change. No longer will it be possible for a man necessarily to follow in the skills of his grandfather and father. I look forward eagerly to the statement we are to hear tomorrow about retraining. I hope that we will also consider whether we do enough to help with the mobility of labour. Are the transfer and resettlement grants administered by the Department of Employment really effective? Are the criteria too restrictive? Are the travel and removal allowances adequate?
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East spoke about the challenge of competition from the Common Market. He might have said more about the challenge of opportunity. There will be great opportunity for Scotland because it will be seen not only as Scotland in the United Kingdom but as Scotland within Europe. I welcome the work that my hon. and right hon. Friends are doing to attract foreign capital and investment for Scotland. I believe that we can offer an environment for work which few areas in Europe can match.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to use the limited time I have to comment in a shorthand fashion upon five complex and difficult decisions.
The first concerns the nuclear power industry and the results of the committee headed by Peter Vintner. This is a difficult matter, and it is no use pretending otherwise. It would be unacceptable to many of us if the leaks are true and the British nuclear power industry is to go American. It may well be that the steam generating heavy water reactor is the reactor of the future combined with a prototype fast breeder reactor. Not just for patriotic Scottish reasons, many of us would like to see whatever permutation is finally arrived at including a place for the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay in the 1980s.
What is absolutely essential is that we do not mess around with one-off projects but stick to some coherent plan, whatever plan may be reached. The trouble besetting the British nuclear industry has been chopping and changing and not settling on one plan. I hope that whatever comes out of Vintner a coherent plan is announced and that we stick to it, measuring it to whatever happens in Europe, because it is crazy to do this out of the context of Europe.
The second decision which has a direct bearing on the debate arises out of the American offer of British participation in the space shuttle. I do not have time to go into the merits or demerits of this, only to say that the Government will have noted that in the memorandum we had from the S.B.A.C. it was pressed upon us that we should participate in the American project. It will not be news to the Secretary of State for Scotland to hear that this is not an eccentric or esoteric matter for Scottish industry. It is vitally important because the electronics industry of much of Scotland will not remain in the forefront of technology unless British participation is accepted.
I am in no doubt that we shall have to do this with our European partners, and I hope that it will be made clear to M. Lefevre and his colleagues, acting as co-ordinators in the European response, that we are keen to participate at an early stage. If we do not participate, let us be under no illusion that Japan will and British industry will lag behind in many important respect. I therefore hope that the Minister will give an immediate reaction on what the Government are doing, and if he can add to the answer given early in January by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) I shall be grateful.
The third issue has already been mentioned in the debate; namely, the V/STOL and STOL project. V/STOL will probably present problems for years to come. Therefore, I wish to conduct the argument in terms of STOL. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has come into the Chamber because he takes a personal interest in this matter. We are under no illusion that this matter must be dealt with on a multinational basis, with each country agreeing to certain landing specifications. It is important, and not only for the aircraft


industry, that decisions on the future of STOL should be announced fairly soon. For Scottish Members, such a system would have enormous personal benefit.
Fourthly, I wish to raise the question of environmental action and to put a direct question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will know from the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill of 16th December and from a debate answered—and I make no complaint about this—by the Leader of the House and subsequently by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that a detailed plan for urban conservation has been put forward on behalf of the Scottish Civic Trust and the Scottish National Trust. I do not claim that it is a panacea but it has two major advantages. The first is that it can bring employment quickly because it is a labour-intensive scheme. The second is that it would employ many people in kindred trades where there is an easy transfer of skill, even from ship repairing. That is the claim of the Scottish Civic Trust, and it seems to me fairly realistic. I hope that the Secretary of State, after all the favourable noises made by the Under-Secretary of State in the House on previous occasions, will be able to put forward some kind of realistic plan in the next few weeks.
Fifthly, the nub issue, referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall), concerns the Bolton Committee's report on small firms. This is very important in the context of employment in the engineering industry. I confine myself to asking the Government to give time for a debate on it and, even better, to take fairly speedy action on its less controversial suggestions.
Finally—because my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) has a great deal to say—I should like to make one other comment—

Mr. John Rankin: who is called is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Dalyell: Many hon. Members will have experienced over the weekend the shock of what is happening in the coalfield. Many hon. Members are better qualified to talk about this matter than I am, but are we sure that it is right to deny benefit to single men in the mining industry? Let us recollect—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I am sorry to intervene, but—

Mr. Dalyell: I have been waiting all day to speak.

Mr. Rankin: So have I—or most of the day. I have just heard nominated as the next speaker an hon. Member who came into the Chamber long after I did. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Government are keeping under review the situation of single men in the coal industry. It will be within their recollection that there was enormous bitterness during the Pilkington strike precisely on this point. I warn them gently that unless some kind of favourable conclusion comes from their continuing review of the situation of single men in the coal industry there will be real trouble. I hope that that trouble can be avoided.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dan Jones.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker I ask you whether it is in order for an hon. Member of this House to nominate the subsequent speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been no nomination of the next speaker by any Member of this House. The hon. Member knows the time is late. He should not occupy the time of the House with a frivolous point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, further to that point of order, it is a point of order which deals with the procedures of this House, and, although I do not want to protract any debate which diverts from the main debate, I am prepared to do it in the defence of the minority interests in this House. I follow the point taken by my hon. Friend previously, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: is it in order for an hon. Member to nominate the subsequent speaker? It is within the recollection of the House that a statement was made nominating the subsequent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already stated that no hon. Member in my hearing has nominated a subsequent speaker. The hon. Member is now using precious moments of the time of the House to say something which sounds rather like a frivolous point of order.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. HANSARD will prove whether I am correct or not. My hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is for the third time referring to something which I have ruled is not a point of order, and to something which an hon. Member did not say.

Mr. Loughlin: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you can rule on a point of order only in accordance with the procedures of this House, and Mr. Deputy Speaker cannot determine that an issue is a point of order or not a point of order except in relation to the procedures of this House. I make this submission to you, that it is the prerogative of the Chair to say who the next speaker or any speaker in this Chamber is to be. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the subsequent speaker. HANSARD tomorrow will prove this. What I am asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the light of his calling on my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), is how it is possible for one hon. Member to nominate the subsequent speaker. Now you can deal with my point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. Mr. Dan Jones.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I intend to speak for no more than five minutes. I shall try to keep to that time. I have taken a certain amount of exception to the fact that the debate has been dominated by Scottish affairs. With all due respect to that part of the country—and I certainly pay all due respect to it and to its entitlement—there are other areas in the country which are suffering very much from this vicious anti-social complaint, that is, unemployment.
I am going to refer, very briefly, to the intermediate areas, in particular to Burnley and north-east Lancashire. The area has suffered catastrophically in this century from the decline in the textile and coal industries. Today's debate is germane to the problems of those industries, inasmuch as their economic and industrial solvency depends substantially on engineering. There was much more that I wanted to say about this, but the clock is against me.
The House should understand that since the war gas turbines for aero-engines have been produced in Burnley. We have in addition some of the finest dough-making machines. Aero accessories and automobile accessories are made in Burnley. Burnley is now predominantly an engineering town. That is why I took exception to the Secretary of State for Scotland who, in opening the debate, concentrated so much on Scotland and did not refer to this area. I hope that the Minister for Industry will give some time and attention to it.
I impress upon the Minister the importance of the Mark II version of the RB211. There is much that I should like to say on that point, but time is not with me. I hope that when the Mark II comes up for Cabinet consideration sympathetic attention will be given to it.
I hope, too, that the suggestion about the machine tool industry made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will receive consideration. If the Government have the confidence in the future that they have expressed—and I want to believe them—they can show their confidence by earmarking parts of the machine tool industry for public ownership and placing them in the development and intermediate areas.
Will the Government seriously consider the reintroduction of investment grants rather than investment allowances? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I am glad to see here, knows very well that the C.B.I. long ago came down in favour of grants rather than allowances. It is not for me to tell him what is the thinking of the C.B.I. He has been a member of that august body for many years and he knows perfectly well that these chaps know what they are talking about in terms of industrial expansion. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reintroduce investment grants rather than allowances. I apologise to the House for having to speak at such a rate but I have the time factor in mind.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) for cutting short his remarks. The Opposition make no apology for returning today to the theme of unemployment. As


my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in opening the debate, we intend to pursue this question until we get satisfactory answers and satisfactory action from the Government.
There was a misunderstanding on the Government side at the outset that there was to be a Scottish emphasis in the debate. That was not our intention. Although I shall start my speech by referring to Scotland, the debate today was intended to be, and on our side has been, a debate taking in the problems of the industries mentioned in the Motion over the whole country. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the misunderstanding enabled the Secretary of State for Scotland to make his statement about the ore terminal at Hunterston which we on this side of the House very much welcome.
There has been confusion about the ore terminal. Sometimes it has seemed to be a definite project and at other times there has been uncertainty, not least because of uncertainty in the Government's handling of the steel industry as a whole. We are happy to have the announcement of the British Steel Corporation today. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said, this is only a start and we are interested in much more major developments at Hunterston than even the ore terminal.
The industries with which we are dealing today are in a sense basic to our industrial prosperity, not only in terms of the employment they provide—something like four and a half million—but also because they take up a large part of the capital investment of this country. Therefore, their prosperity is important, not just for those industries but for the strength of the economy as a whole.
It has been remarkable that we have had a series of speeches from both sides of the House which have been both critical and constructive. They have had as their general theme the desperate need for the Government to take immediate action on our engineering and capital-intensive industries.
The facts about unemployment are well enough known. Unemployment in the industries with which we are dealing today has gone up from about 95,500 in

June, 1970, to 204,000 in December, 1971. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said in opening the debate, the number of vacancies has also gone steadily down. Even in the most favoured parts of the country there are now several men chasing every job: and in areas like Scotland there is a very large gap between the unemployment and vacancy figures. This is bad enough, but there are a number of other factors in the situation which make it even more critical.
If we take the question of engineering orders, there was a time a month or two ago when the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side in general were seeing a chink of light in respect of an improvement in engineering orders. That proved to be no more than a chink of light because the latest figures published in the Trade and Industry Journal on Friday last week show that in the period of three months from September to November, 1971—the latest period for which figures are available—compared with the previous three months there was not an improvement, but a further deterioration in the situation. In regard to new orders, home orders were up in that period by about 1 per cent.; export orders were down by 14 per cent.; total orders were down by 3 per cent. Deliveries in the three-months period show a deterioration of 2 per cent. over the previous three months, and the total order book for the industry at the end of November was 1 per cent. down as compared with what it was at the end of August.
Then there is the background to the problem in this country. I admit it does not date simply from June, 1970, but has a very much longer history. This relates to the problem of a lower rate of investment to gross national product in this country as compared with many countries whose industries are our competitors overseas. The Prime Minister gave the figures in a speech last week in the unemployment debate. Japan has an investment rate as a percentage of gross national product of 35 per cent.; in the countries of the Six the rate is 23 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom the rate is only 18 per cent.
This makes all the more tragic the present state of the engineering industry. As for the number of new jobs, some figures were given in a Written Answer last Friday by the Department of Trade and Industry. It can be seen that the number of new jobs involved in industrial development certificates given in 1971 was one-third down compared with the 1970 figures. These were the figure not simply for development areas, but for the whole of the United Kingdom—and they are very serious figures.
If we look at the prospects for the future and not just at the present situation, we see that the picture is extremely dismal. The C.B.I. Financial Trend Survey of September, 1971, showed that the capital investment expectations of industry were such that only 24 per cent. of the people who replied to the survey expected to spend more on plant and machinery over the next 12 months than they had spent over the previous 12 months. In regard to buildings the percentage of people who expected to spend more was only 16 per cent. compared with the previous period. The Financial Times survey in December produced equally dismal figures.
There is no sign yet of a real upturn in capital investment—and hon. Members opposite have made this point as firmly as we have—or of any upturn at all in the economy. This is despite the fact that it is the Government's intention to enter the Common Market on 1st January, 1973. For obvious reasons I shall not go into the merits of that tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, it may be that some industrialists in this country are holding back investment because they hope to invest on the Continent of Europe. That would be an extremely dismal prospect. But even if it is not as bad as that, if we take the most favourable interpretation of this it still means that British industry has not yet got the message that the Government are trying to put over that it should be investment more to take advantage of the opportunity which the Government say will be available when we enter the Common Market.
We on this side, of course, are opposed to entry. Whatever we think about it,

it still remains true that if we enter Europe in a situation in which industry has not prepared itself and has not invested to take advantage of the opportunities, the economic effects of entry for this country are bound to be extremely disadvantageous in the short term as well as in the longer term.
In the Secretary of State's speech today, we had trotted out again what is now a very tired excuse about the inheritance of the present Government in June, 1970. It was remarkable and significant that, with the inevitable exception of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), not one hon. Member on the Government side gave that as an excuse for the Government's record in the past 18 months. They all accepted the seriousness of the position, and no one tried to excuse the situation for the Government by pretending that it was one that the Government had inherited in June, 1970. I hope very much that the Minister for Industry will turn his mind exclusively to the situation that we have now and to the problems that we have. I hope, too, that he will answer the points put to him from both sides of the House.
I want to set out a number of general considerations which the Government should have in mind and to illustrate them by reference to specific industries. The first affects the Government's attitude towards industry, especially those branches of industry on which our real prosperity depends. It is absurd for the Government to have even the lingering feeling that they should disengage themselves from private industry. There is an interesting example of how absurd this is in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology about the computer industry. I hope that at some stage the House will have an opportunity to debate that Report at length. That all-party Committee makes the simple point which I hope that the Government accept not just for the computer industry but for industry generally that, if we want to see industry prosper, it requires more and not less Government assistance, more and not less Government intervention and more and not less planning. That is a lesson which the Government give no sign of having learned, not just about the computer industry but about their relations with industry as a whole.
My second general point is that it is very important that we should protect the industry that we have in this country already. This point was made effectively by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). It does not make sense not to protect and enhance the industry that we have already. Again, the computer industry is a good example. I noticed in The Times the other day a report that the Government "think-tank" apparently is studying whether we need a computer industry in this country at all. I hope that that report is inaccurate. It seems criminal that any Government should even consider a proposition of that kind. Considering the amount of money already spent on the computer industry and considering that we are one of the few nations outside the United States which have a viable computer industry, we ought to be giving it every support and encouragement and not thinking whether we need to maintain the industry at all.
We had another example in the aircraft industry with the RB211. Again, I hope that we shall have a separate opportunity of debating the White Paper which was published about ten days ago. There is no indication in the White Paper of what we know to be the fact, that the Government had decided to write off the RB211 completely. That was the situation which we had last February. All of us will remember the appalling speech by the Minister of Aviation Supply on 8th February, 1971, in which he said that it was the Government's intention to write off the RB211 completely.
The Government were saved from themselves in a sense by pressure in this House and elsewhere. Yet, at the end of the day, the contract was saved by only one vote in the United States Senate. The whole incident damaged British industrial prestige considerably. Now that we have seen the White Paper it is extremely doubtful, to put it no higher, whether the Government have saved any money. If they had gone in and handled the situation in a different way, the project could have been saved without the expenditure of Government money greater than they are committed to by the White Paper.
The RB211 incident is a good example of the Government's original doctrinaire intention of contracting out altogether,

but being forced to change their mind by pressure both here and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the same kind of thing has not happened to the same extent—I mean the Government being forced to change their mind—in the shipbuilding industry. In this respect I agree absolutely with everything that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). This was another instance where the Government decided to disengage. We had a long period of uncertainty after the General Election. We had the dismantling of the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the general impression by the Government, which persists to this day, that they were not interested in seizing the opportunities for the British shipbuilding industry which are available in world demand at the present time.
Other nations with shipbuilding industries have not taken this attitude, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. They have supported their industries and subsidised them, whether in the Common Market, France and Italy, or Japan, where 100 per cent. of Japanese orders go to Japanese shipyards compared with only about a third or a quarter in the United Kingdom. In all these other countries they have the message that if they want to remain in the league of industrial leaders they have to support the industries which they already have.
We had the abolition of investment grants for shipping at the same time as investment grants were abolished elsewhere—contrary, incidentally, to the recommendation of the Rochdale Committee that if investment grants were abolished equal incentives ought to be given to the shipping industry.
I was amazed that the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon quoted the order book of the shipbuilding industry at the end of December, 1971, without pointing out that in terms of compensated tons, which is the real comparison to make, the orders by British shipowners in 1971 were only a third of what they were in 1970. British shipowners attribute this tremendous falling-off of orders to the abolition of investment grants for shipping. This will have an ultimate effect on the balance of payments. It has an effect at the moment on our shipbuilding


industry. It is desperate for the shipbuilding industry that we do something about financial incentives to shipping so that we can get the increased orders which we will need if the industry is not to fade away in two or three years.
Turning to U.C.S., we are very glad to see the initiative that was taken by the trade unions in their recent visit to the United States of America. The Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon mentioned the interests of the Marathon Company in the Clydebank Yard, and it is this yard which is the key to the solution of the U.C.S. problem. I thought that it was ungracious of the Secretary of State to refer to that without saying that the Marathon initiative springs directly from the visit of Mr. McGarvey and his colleagues to the United States. It is not something that happened by Government initiative.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I in no way detract from what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I was pointing out that there were a number of other interests involved. When Mr. McGarvey went to the United States it was to make contact with the people who had previously been concerned, but who apparently dropped out. A number of interests have been involved. The Government have been trying to attract as many firms as possible which might be interested in taking over this yard.

Mr. Millan: That is not the impression that we have had on this side of the House, nor is it the impression on Clyde-side. The fact remains that the Marathon interest, which is the most hopeful thing that has happened with Clydebank, came from a trade union initiative, and I thought that it was very bad that the Secretary of State could not bring himself even to mention that.
As regards the general employment situation, the fact that there are still 7,000 men employed in U.C.S. and that redundancies have been kept down to 1,000 is no thanks to the Government. If the original Government proposals had gone through, by this time most of the workers there would have lost their jobs. They are in work because of the determined action of the workers and the trade unions concerned—

Mr. Campbell: rose—

Mr. Millan: I shall not give way. That determined action has been supported—

Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: No. The right hon. Gentleman took a rather long time to say very little.
I hope that we shall not get from the Minister tonight what we had from the Prime Minister last week—merely an exhortation. The Prime Minister appealed to private industry to invest more because, he said, the situation was going to improve. He had nothing new to offer it. He had no new proposals to make. He was merely making an appeal to private industry to invest more.
That was bad enough, but when the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wound up the debate on the machine tool industry on 22nd December he admitted that the situation in the industry was critical and that the Government had nothing to offer it. He concluded by saying:
I conclude by hoping that the machine tool industry will have a happier year than it has had in 1971."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 1525.]
That was very charming, but as the industry had had the worst year in its history it could not have a worse year in 1972. They were merely words.
There has been nothing constructive to help the machine tool industry. What that industry and others with which we are concerned want from the Government is not exhortation, not just an appreciation of their problems, but real action to help them to get over those problems.
A number of things are necessary if we are to create confidence in industry and elsewhere and if we are to give industry the stimulus which hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed on the Government today as being urgently required. First, there is a need for the establishment of the I.R.C., either as it was before, or another version of it, to do the job of restructuring industry, a job which industry is not able successfully to do itself.
The second thing which is necessary—and this again has been supported by both sides of the House—is a return to the investment grant system. There is no doubt that the change from investment


grants to tax allowances has had a disastrous effect, particularly in the development areas. That is know in the industry and in the House. The Government will not admit that the change was an error of substantial proportions which has very considerably affected industrial confidence. There is a desperate need for the Government now to reverse that decision.
There is also a need to do something in the machine tool industry. A number of proposals have been made today—retooling the Royal Ordnance factories, orders by nationalised industries and so on. There is the question of the Swedish system of capital expenditure tax certificates, which should also be considered.
Obviously, there is a variety of ways. Another way would be free depreciation for industry generally in buying machine tools for a limited period. Provided that it was combined with the restoration of investment grants, one could maintain the differential between the development and the non-development areas. But however the Government do this, there is a serious problem here. Unless something is done about the machine tool industry quickly, the boom, if it comes—we all hope that it will—will come so late and the industry will be so run down that the additional machine tools which will then be required for capital equipment will come not from the British industry but from abroad. That is the great danger which hon. Members opposite as well as on this side have pointed out today.
I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude towards advance factories. Many advance factories are unoccupied but if the Government are really convinced that better times are coming, that capital investment will improve and that industry will soon want to expand, one of the best ways in which they could express their confidence is by starting now a further programme of advance factories, so that when capital investment begins to pick up again, or we begin to have mobile industry looking for expansion opportunities, these factories will be available in the development areas. The Government should now say that they made a mistake over the regional employment premium and that it will continue beyond 1974. This would give the development areas a tremendous stimulus.
None of these suggestions is particularly original. The tragic aspect of the present situation is that these suggestions have been made continually from this side of the House, by outside commentators and even by hon. Members on the Government side for a considerable time. But there has been no real sign yet that the Government are willing to adopt any of these suggestions. We shall keep coming back to this problem until the Government produce satisfactory solutions.
We do that because we appreciate that we face here not just an economic problem but also a human problem of absolutely appalling proportions. All of us, representing the interests of our constituents, have a right to bring that problem to the attention of the Government, to persist in our criticism of them and to persist in bringing this matter to the attention of the House until eventually we get a satisfactory response from the Government. I therefore hope that the House will support the Motion.

9.39 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): At the beginning of his speech when he wound up for the Opposition in a similar debate last week the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) fairly recognised that we are attempting to grapple with immensely difficult problems in the nature of the present high level of unemployment. He said:
…it would be foolish for any of us to suppose that they can be solved at the wave of a wand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1091.]
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said then because it seemed that some hon. Members today, particularly the right hon. Gentleman himself, were trying to make out that there was some obvious tailor-made solution which would put everything to rights. I do not doubt hon. Members' sincerity in that. All of us must surely wish that there could be some quick answer to the deep-seated process which has brought insecurity, indignity and unhappiness to so many homes. If caring could do it we would have found the cure many months ago.
But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not as easy as that. It is an immensely complex matter, and this fact


was well illustrated in the wide range of subjects touched on in this debate, which was intended, I believe, to be slightly more concise than last week's debate. The industries mentioned during the course of the debate have ranged from the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry, and heavy engineering, to the newer technologies which were especially mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The regions represented during the course of the debate have stretched from Scotland to the North-East and the West Midlands, and even the problems of Walthamstow have been mentioned.
The nature and scale of the present unemployment is widely recognised as being a most serious and complex problem. To put it right we need, first, to know and to understand what has been happening, not just in the past few months, but at least over a number of years; and we need to know why it has been happening. To find the causes of the present high level of unemployment we need to go back to the policies of the previous Government. As we do so, it will be seen how in three areas in particular they directly contributed to the recent widespread loss of jobs and closing of plant.
I do not accuse members of the previous Government of wanting unemployment or of trying to create it, any more than they would surely do so of us; but I do accuse them of failing to recognise in terms of job security the consequences of their own policy, the full miserable harvest of which we have been reaping in the past few months. They apparently need to be reminded of one or two facts, particularly now when they are calling for a greater stimulus to be given to expansion than that which has already been given.
First, it was the Labour Government which quite deliberately followed a policy of slow growth, a policy in which they were distressingly successful, achieving a growth rate of less than 15 per cent. overall in six years with a low point of less than 2 per cent. a year in the last two years.
Now by comparison there is a real prospect of an annual rate of increase in domestic demand of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. sustained over a number of

years ahead. Provided that the price competitiveness in international markets is maintained, there is no reason why this rate of growth should not be achieved.
Second, the Labour Government deliberately set out to squeeze company profits, to tax individual earnings, and to load an additional burden against employment in the service trades at the very moment when they should have been doing precisely the reverse. By comparison we have already reduced taxation by £1,400 million in a full year and we have halved the selective employment tax. I heartily agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) about the damage that that particular brand of taxation did.
Third, the previous Government also, towards the end of their time, deliberately, almost cynically, unleashed the full force of indiscriminate wage inflation. The equation of deflation, excessive taxation and uncontrolled wage inflation has inevitably led to job loss and shut-down. We are paying today a heavy price for the policies of yesterday's men. The policy of slow growth had consequences for demand directly affecting the level of investment in the years that followed. This has been clearly seen in, for example, the industry referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), the electricity supply industry. The reduced forecasts of demand attributable to the previous Government's policies of slow growth have meant fewer orders for manufacturers of switch-gear and turbo-generators. The cutback has had a most damaging effect on the heavy electrical, boiler making and heavy fabricating industries, and this has had a direct impact on employment in those industries. A sharply reduced order book from the domestic electricity supply industry has meant fewer jobs in the manufacturing companies as the backlog has worked through.
To counter this effect, the present Government took direct action by bringing forward the start of a new power station, advancing by many months the placing of orders for its construction, its plant and its equipment. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) asked about Sizewell B. As he knows, the choice of a power station is primarily a matter


for the Central Electricity Generating Board, but I should tell him that Ince B was chosen in this case to enable an earlier impact to be felt on the employment figures than would otherwise have been the case, since Ince B is a repeat order. While on the subject of power stations, perhaps I may tell the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that I hope to be able to answer some of the points which he raised when I move the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill tomorrow.
There is no doubt that the fall back in employment opportunities in certain sectors of heavy industry has had a serious impact in the regions. In this context we heard again the voice of the Midlands through the mouth of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone. In the Birmingham area, about one in 10 applications for industrial development certificates have not been granted. It is an extremely difficult balance of judgment to weigh the needs of areas such as those which have been represented in today's debate against those of the older industrial conurbations which are desperately in need of any mobile industry which can go there and bring new employment opportunities.
I well understand why the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) was worried at some of the comments made on this score. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) that there is considerable scope in all this for the tourist industry and the prospects which it can open up in terms of new employment. The service industries generally can offer tremendous new outlets for employment in the regions, and this prospect will be increasingly seen as our economy expands in the years ahead.
Many of the areas where our older industries are concentrated know from their past experience that slow growth leads to higher unemployment. That has invariably been so, but this time there was the additional factor of wage inflation which has made the position much worse. The previous Government deliberately stoked up the fires of wage inflation. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), in her notorious "The power is on the shop

floor" speech, was guilty of incitement of the most irresponsible kind. Having failed in her own attempt at containment, she went right over to the other extreme and actively identified herself with the exaggerated claims for higher wages, as have most members of her party since then.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: rose—

Sir J. Eden: Now it appears that they are prepared to go to almost any length, openly backing industrial action in order to push harder on a front where they know an advance can only cause damage, an advance which for a time when they were in office and had some sense of responsibility they were so determined to do their best to check.
The consequences of the previous Government's policy on wage inflation are still with us. We see them most clearly in what has happened to the shipbuilding industry, where the hoped for benefits in fixed-price contracts have been swamped in rising costs. To counter this, and the falling order book in the industry, we have brought forward about £80 million-worth of new naval shipbuilding orders. The home credit scheme, which started at £200 million, now stands at £700 million and will shortly be raised to £1,000 million. The industry has been given all the assistance promised under the Geddes programme, and more. In spite of what has been said by Labour Members, the present Government postponed the dissolution of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, the terminal date of which was written into the previous Government's Act.
Both Opposition Front Bench speakers have referred to the position of U.C.S. But the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) must have known perfectly well that we made it clear in August that the main burden of redundancies would not take place before the end of the year. He also knows that many attempts have been made to find suitable interested parties to put in a bid for the Clydebank yard. I readily pay tribute to the work of Danny McGarvey, who I am sure will acknowledge the way in which we have co-operated. The firm of Breaksea Tank Ships asked us not to come forward with any assistance which the Department might be in a position to give, because it was not quite


ready for it. But Marathon Manufacturing Company certainly is interested. I had an interesting discussion with it last Friday. The amount of Local Employment Act assistance that might be available for it is certainly not the decisive factor, and hon. Members delude themselves if they think it is. The firm made clear to me that what matters most to it is to be able to maintain its delivery schedules, which are extremely tight with the sort of product it intends to manufacture. Therefore, the most important thing for it is the agreement on working practices, without which it probably would not be prepared to proceed.
Faced with mounting costs, many companies have inevitably found themselves with virtually no room for manœuvre. There was a limit to the extent to which they could pass on in higher prices the extra costs incurred. That way played straight into the hands of our competitors. In most cases it was a self-defeating exercise, leading to renewed claims for higher wages. In any case, there was a limit to the amount of extra wages they could finance. The previous Government's deliberate policy of squeezing company profits was taking its toll. That has had serious consequences for companies' cash flow, leading directly to low investment performance, and has hit particularly hard the capital goods industries. The machine tool industry is no exception. That industry has been mentioned by the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) and others.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Sir John Eden: The machine tool industry has been very hard hit, It is always last to be affected by any downturn in the economy and, regrettably, seems also to be the last to be affected by any upturn. But one thing is quite clear, that the competitiveness of the industry is very sound, the quality of the product is very good, and the figures show—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Sir J. Eden: I have much more of the debate still to answer.
The figures clearly show the extent to which the machine tool industry has been able to beat competition in markets overseas. Obviously this—

Mr. Benn: rose—

Sir J. Eden: Very well, if the right hon. Gentleman will be quick.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Before he sits down, can he tell us the date when he estimates that unemployment will be reduced to the level which the Government inherited from their predecessors?

Sir J. Eden: I was talking about the machine tool industry.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Very well. If it is the intention of hon. Members opposite to stop me from finishing my speech, let them by all means shout; let them by all means make ridiculous exhibitions of themselves tonight, as they did the other night. There are many points in the debate which I am trying to answer and I shall continue to try to do so.
Obviously, in the machine tool industry and the rest of British manufacturing industry this is the ideal time for the older plant to be replaced, and certainly there is every indication that expansion is well on the way. One of the key areas in this is the motor car industry. The new car registrations are at a record this year. Last year was also a record for them. This indicates record sales. Hon. Members opposite who are so keen to jeer at these things may well ask themselves how it is that the previous record year for new car registrations and car sales was 1964. What, one may ask, was happening between 1964 and 1971? They were the years of the locust eating into the vitality of our industry. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that investment has been taking place in European countries because demand for motor cars has been greater there, and it is to stimulate the demand for cars over here that we have deliberately geared our new policy to stimulating growth in the consumer industries.

Mr. Ron Lewis: rose—

Sir J. Eden: All the measures that we have been taking are designed to increase general consumer spending power in the knowledge that the goods that are bought


will benefit the engineering industry generally and will be reflected in bigger orders for the component industries.
Our aim is clear. It is to get growth under way to absorb the unemployment and to provide new job opportunities for those at present out of work. We will do this in a way which will avoid overloading, and it will be spread forward over a three-year period. The foundations for growth are there and opportunities are better for investment than they have ever been. Our industry is increas-

ingly competitive. It is making better use of its resources. New initiatives in training are about to be announced. We are shortly to have access, on equal terms with our competitors, to the expanding European market. Thanks to the measures that the Government have already taken, demand is being re-invigorated and confidence is returning.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 276.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hayhoe, Barney


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Heseltine, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dean, Paul
Hicks, Robert


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Higgins, Terence L.


Astor, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hiley, Joseph


Atkins, Humphrey
Dixon, Piers
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Dodds-Park, Douglas
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Holland, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Holt, Miss Mary


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hordern, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Dykes, Hugh
Hornby, Richard


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eden, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bell, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Benyon, W.
Emery, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biggs-Davison, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Iremonger, T. L.


Blaker, Peter
Fidler, Michael
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
James, David


Body, Richard
Fletcher Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boscawen, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Andrew
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fowler, Norman
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Braine, Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brewis, John
Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kilfedder, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buck, Antony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kinsey, J. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gorst, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gower, Raymond
Knox, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lambton, Lord


Channon, Paul
Gray, Hamish
Lane, David


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
Longden, Gilbert


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
Loveridge, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Luce, R. N.


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
MacArthur, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cordle, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McLaren, Martin


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McMaster, Stanley


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Critchley, Julian
Hastings, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Crouch, David
Havers, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Crowder, F. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Maddan, Martin


Curran, Charles
Hay, John
Madel, David




Maginnis, John E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sutcliffe, John


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tapsell, Peter


Marten, Neil
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mather, Carol
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Maude, Angus
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ramsden, R. Hn. James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Tebbit, Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tilney, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Moate, Roger
Ridsdale, Julian
Trew, Peter


Molyneaux, James
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Money, Ernie
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vickers, Dame Joan


More, Jasper
Rost, Peter
Waddington, David


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Royle, Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morrison, Charles
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mudd, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Murton, Oscar
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wall, Patrick


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sharples, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nott, John
Simeons, Charles
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Onslow, Cranley
Sinclair, Sir George
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wilkinson, John


Osborn, John
Soref, Harold
Winterton, Nicholas


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Speed, Keith
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sproat, Iain
Worsley, Marcus


Parkinson, Cecil
Stainton, Keith
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Peel, John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Hn. George


Percival, Ian
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)



Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Pounder, Rafton
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom





NOES


Abse, Leo
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ellis, Tom


Albu, Austen
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
English, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Fred


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Henry


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Ashley, Jack
Conlan, Bernard
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Ashton, Joe
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnes, Michael
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Foot, Michael


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Ford, Ben


Baxter, William
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Beaney, Alan
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Deakins, Eric
Golding, John


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Delargy, H. J.
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dormand, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamling, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Edelman, Maurice
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hattersley, Roy


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis







Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hilton, W. S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Sillars, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen)
Millan, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Janner, Greville
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Spearing, Nigel


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Steel, David


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Murray, Ronald King
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oram, Bert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tomney, Frank


Lambie, David
Padley, Walter
Torney, Tom


Latham, Arthur
Paget, R. T.
Tuck, Raphael


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Leonard, Dick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pavitt, Laurie
Wallace, George


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Weitzman, David


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wellbeloved, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Prescott, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


McBride, Neil
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McCann, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McCartney, Hugh
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McElhone, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McGuire, Michael
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn, Harold (Huyton)


Mackie, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackintosh, John p.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)



McManus, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roper, John
Mr. J amps A. Dunn and 


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville

Main question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 276.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Blaker, Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Burden, F. A.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Astor, John
Boscawen, Robert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Channon, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chapman, Sydney


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bray, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Churchill, W. S.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bell, Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cooke, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Coombs, Derek




Cooper, A. E.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordle, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Crouch, David
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Curran, Charles
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Sir John
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Farr, John
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Lord
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Foster, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fowler, Norman
Luce, R. N.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sharples, Richard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Soref, Harold


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Gorst, John
Maginnis, John E.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Green, Alan
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Grieve, Percy
Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray
Sutcliffe, John


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Mever, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Havers, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Trew, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hay, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
 Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wall, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally 
Warren, Kenneth


Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Osborn, John 
White, Roger, (Gravesend)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William







Wiggin, Jerry
Woodnutt, Mark



Wilkinson, John
Worsloy, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterion, Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Bernard Weatherill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McBride, Neil


Albu, Austen
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
McCann, John


Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Michael
Mackie, John


Atkinson, Norman
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Barnes, Michael
Eraser, John (Norwood)
McManus, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marquand, David


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Golding, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Carmichael, Neil
Hilton, W. S.
Murray, Ronald King


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes. Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Bert


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
John, Brynmor
Pardoe, John


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ewing, Henry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)







Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Taverne, Dick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Sillars, James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silverman, Julius
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William


Skinner, Dennis
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Small, William
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Spearing, Nigel
Torney, Tom
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stallard, A. W.
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Steel, David
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)



Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins David
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David



Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the problems of heavy industry following five years of almost total economic stagnation, welcomes the steps

Her Majesty's Government have taken and are taking to restore confidence in the economy, with the object of providing increased employment, greater price stability and a sound base for future expansion.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Industrial Relations may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move,
That the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971 (S.1., 1971, No. 1761), dated 27th October, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be withdrawn.
We are praying against this order, which brings into operation some of the most objectionable parts of the Industrial Relations Act. The various paragraphs of the order bring into operation in toto 59 Sections of the Act, eight Sections partially, Schedule 1, two paragraphs of Schedule 3, Schedule 6, Schedule 8, relating to amendments to the Act, and Schedule 9, repeals of previous Acts.
The order has been in operation since 1st December last year. At that date the National Industrial Relations Court opened its doors for business. The powers of the Act now under discussion could have been used at any time since 1st December. The order brings into force Part VIII of the Act which deals with emergency procedures. It also brings into operation Part III, dealing with collective bargaining, under which the provisions relating to the agency shop and the approved close shop agreements apply.
What we find so objectionable is that it brings into operation the so-called unfair industrial practices, except those relating to the rights or so-called rights of a worker or trade union member. We are very much concerned with the emergency procedures laid down in the Act. A Press hand-out from the Department of Employment of 4th November, 1971, said,
From December parties will be able to take action in the Industrial Relations Court relating to all these provisions"—

that is, the provisions in the order—
and also the registration provisions.
Up until today those provisions had not been extensively used. I do not argue that they should be used because, if they were used, it would exacerbate an already explosive situation. If they were used, they would be totally irrelevant to the needs and requirements of the present conflict in the coal mining industry.
The Government have got themselves into a false position. We have the coal miners' strike on our hands. It is the first national strike in the industry since 1926. Last year, we had the biggest loss of days in strike action since 1926. The Government argue that matters are much better. They say there are fewer strikes. But we are losing far more days in strike action. Although we get fewer strikes in numbers, we are getting longer and bigger strikes, and they are more difficult to settle.
According to the Government, we are seeing a great achievement. The fact that we had 13 million days lost in strikes last year as against 11 million the previous year and an average of between three million and 3½ million in the days of the Labour Government is an advance. If that is the sort of advance that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want in industrial relations, it is not the sort of advance that the people want.

Mr. David Mitchell: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that all that he is doing is merely restating the need for the introduction of this legislation? It was not on the Statute Book at the time that we were building up the figures that he has produced.

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) intervened. The Secretary of State has gone into print on this matter. It is not my usual bed-time reading, but my attention has been drawn to the report of an interview with the right hon. Gentleman which was published in Reader's Digest, in the course of which he talked about the emergency powers that we are discussing under this order. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The Act allows me, as Secretary of State for Employment, to apply to the new National Industrial Relations Court for a 'cooling-off' period—of up to 60 days—in any dispute that I feel might endanger public health, create serious disorders or severely damage the


economy. Where the livelihoods of a large number of workers would be affected, I can also ask the court to order a secret ballot if there is doubt whether a majority of the workers want to take industrial action.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked:
Won't such a complex Act create a lawyers' paradise?
He replied:
No, I don't believe it will. Like any law in a free society, it is not meant to be invoked in every dispute.
It has not been invoked in the coal miners' dispute, and for one simple reason. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is totally irrelevant to any solution of the dispute. In any case, instead of using his conciliation powers, instead of using the machinery, instead of trying to get a settlement of the dispute, the right hon. Gentleman is standing behind the National Coal Board and making it difficult for the Board to reach a settlement.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman putting his hand on his heart and telling the House, as he did in the postmen's strike, "I am being absolutely fair and neutral; I am not on one side or the other." Everyone knows that he was against the postmen and in favour of a continuation of the dispute until the postmen were forced to accept less than they wanted. A similar situation has arisen in respect of the coal miners. But there is an important difference which the right hon. Gentleman should understand. The coal miners are a great deal more experienced in industrial conflict than were the postmen.
The right hon. Gentleman faces a very dangerous situation. He could invoke Section 141 and have a ballot, putting to the coal miners' whether they were really in favour of the strike. I should like to see him try. Whereas about 58 per cent. were originally in favour of the dispute, he would find today that the coal miners are almost 100 per cent. for it.
We cannot have a situation in which, on the eve of the dispute, the Chairman of the National Coal Board withdraws all previous offers and expect the miners not to become angry at the Board and the Government, who are applying a wages policy while telling this House that no wages policy exists.
We believe that the order, which brings in all these Sections, is totally irrelevant to solving the problems in the coal mining or in any other industry. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to solve the coal mining dispute, let him use his conciliation machinery properly. Let him, in fact, withdraw the letters that he sent to the chairmen of the arbitration boards drawing their attention to the speech of the Chancellor in the Budget debate when the Government were pointing to the norm. If the Government want to solve the problem they should use the machinery in the correct way. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go from this House tonight and begin to become active in solving the coal mining dispute, not to line up behind the Board and make it difficult for it to reach a settlement.
I have no intention of making a long speech tonight. However, I should like to draw attention to one other part of the order. I refer to the part which deals with compensation, the part which states that trade unions or trade unionists may be fined, although the Act does not call it a "fine". If trade unions or workers do not desire to carry out this particular Section of the Act, they could find themselves inside a prison. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is not true, but I could quote again what he said in Reader's Digest. The facts are that heavy penalties can be imposed on the trade union movement as a result of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. Wherever this kind of law has been applied, as in Australia and other countries, where trade unions have refused to pay the fine or compensation, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, industrial conflict has intensified, not diminished.
Since 1st December, when this part of the Act came into operation, we have not seen it play any positive rôle in helping to solve an industrial conflict. Therefore, it is an irrelevant and dangerous Act which makes difficult situations even worse. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the order tonight.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have never heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) make a


weaker speech or one with less conviction than that which he made tonight in moving the Prayer. I am astonished, after all that this was billed for, that we should have such a mouse come out from the hon. Gentleman whose bellow we normally expect.
The hon. Gentleman made three points in the course of his speech. I will deal with each point briefly, because it is not worth detaining the House long over them.
First, the hon. Gentleman told us that last year the largest number of working days were lost in this country since 1926, that this must be the result of Tory activities and of the Act in particular, and that this was an argument against introducing these Sections of the Act which the order would bring into operation. But the hon. Gentleman knows, as well as anybody in the House, that the Act was not in operation last year, because we spent much time debating it here. He knows perfectly well that, with the introduction of these orders, we are only now seeing the implementation of major parts of the Act.
Even when it went on the Statute Book it was having no effect until the orders were laid to bring into operation the various parts of the Act to which they referred. Therefore the whole of that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was based on a false foundation. Indeed, I should turn it the other way and say to the hon. Gentleman that if the situation is as bad as he suggested at the beginning of his speech, that shows even more firmly the need for action such as the Government have taken in introducing this legislation.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the relevant part of the Act became law immediately it should be used against the miners?

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but if he will allow me I will deal with every point made by his hon. Friend. That was his third point, and I will deal with it thirdly in my speech.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Act empowers the Secretary of State to apply a cooling-off period, provided—and the hon. Gentleman listed the items in the Act which have to be

fulfilled to convince the court—that the dispute is endangering the national economy, national safety, and various other things. What the hon. Gentleman failed to tell the House—the House does not need reminding of this, but apparently the hon. Gentleman does—is that the Minister must also be convinced that the use of the cooling-off period would be likely to lead to a settlement. That must be a matter for the judgment of the Minister. It must be a matter of timing. Because, at this stage in the affair, the Minister has not decided that a cooling-off period is likely to lead to a settlement, or that it is the right time to apply it, there is surely no good reason for not having such legislation on the Statute Book. Again the hon. Gentleman has failed to make his point.
The hon. Gentleman's third point is that involved in the Sections of the Act to be brought into force by this order there is the question of alleged prison sentences, but we have had no indication that there is any reality in that. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about fines, but he knows that the Act does not provide for the introduction of fines. It contains a provision about awards for compensation. The hon. Gentleman has not given one indication, either tonight or during the debates on the Bill, of any way in which the compensation awards would be other than fair and just. The hon. Gentleman did not remind the House that the compensation awards apply against both employers and trade unions who breach agreements into which they have entered. Therefore on his third point he has failed to make the case for rejecting the order.
The order provides for the introduction of much of the machinery by which the Industrial Relations Act will operate. We all know in this House—and the thinness of the attendance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's speech—[interruption.]—It is not this side of the House which is objecting. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are supposed to be objecting. The thinness of attendance and the weakness of the speech of the hon. Member for Walton show that hon. Members opposite no longer have arguments of force and validity to make against the Act, and that much of the improvement which our industrial relations so badly need in


the months ahead will rest on the smooth operation of the Act.
The House should give this order its blessing. Hon Members would serve the interests of the unemployed, those who want to work, their constituents and the country at large if they would try to help the generation of the good will on both sides of industry which is essential to the prosperity of industry and those who work in it.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: This order is a monument to the belief that once this House passes legislation, everything happens automatically. In fact, the passing of legislation is only the first part of the proceedings. Democracy rests upon consent and if that is withheld, the laws which the House passes do not work in practice.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did not deploy on this occasion the full power of his oratory, it was probably because of his implicit recognition that this issue will be determined not here but outside. Oratory at this moment would be out of place. My hon. Friend put the case adequately and effectively and said all that needed to be said—that it is one thing for the Government to pass legislation like this but quite another for them to enforce it.
This legislation affects the relationship not between persons and Government but between persons and other persons. That type of legislation is often ineffective, and so it will prove in this case. The Government are trying to control relationships between employer and union or employee. One thing which emerged from our long discussions on the Bill was the extreme complexity of such relationships and the extreme difficulty of laying down rules which would apply throughout the whole range.
It will prove impossible to regulate these relationships, so the legislation will be piecemeal—effective in some respects but not in others. Consequently the law will fall into disrepute. The Act will apply in some areas. It will prevent some things being done where it can be enforced, but in other areas it cannot and will not be enforced.
So our reactions to the Act are varied. From their personal knowledge of industry, my hon. Friends know that it will be impossible to enforce, so they are not too worried. But some of us are worried about the possible implications of the Act on industrial relations we know something about. Section 18 brings in special provisions for the approval of closed shop agreements. This provision was introduced—to some extent, at any rate—because of protests made by myself and others on this side about the consequences of relations in the entertainment industry. It was traditional to attempt to control the numbers coming into the industry: unless there was an effective closed shop, the industry would be even more showered with excessive labour than is the case already.
This provision, which was introduced to permit the possibility of a closed shop in certain circumstances, will benefit some parts of industry. It will be of no benefit in the area for which it was introduced. If hon. Members opposite are to be believed, it was introduced to give some protection to the entertainment industry, to make it possible for that industry to regulate the numbers coming in. However, this provision does not permit that, because it prevents the pre-entry closed shop. The desirability of controlling numbers entering the industry applies not only to the entertainment industry and to performers and technicians but over a wider field where the union performs more than the ordinary functions of a union but a series of functions such as those performed by barristers-at-law and other professions whose entry is controlled by examination. This is the alternative to an examination qualification.
Where, as in the case of this closed shop qualification, the closed shop is not allowed to be pre-entry, it is no use. It has to be pre-entry or it is not a closed shop. It is merely a recognition of the existence of trade unionism after the event. In these areas what is necessary is a recognition of the existence of trade unionism before entry. Therefore, this provision is valueless.
In the whole of this legislation one sees that the attempt by Parliament to provide effectively for the complex relationships between unions and their


members and between unions and employers will prove to be ineffective. I say, not only on behalf of the trade unions in the entertainment industry but also on behalf of employers, that the Act will do nothing but a disservice to industrial relations in entertainment. We shall have to attempt to get round the legislation. We shall have to try to make agreements with reputable employers to overcome the barriers which are placed in the way of unions by this legislation. We shall be able to make agreements with reputable employers, but there will be disreputable employers who will get round the agreements. Consequently, the whole range, tone and standing of the industry will be lowered. This fear is shared by the best employers in the industry as well as by the trade unionists concerned.
I say that this legislation is no good, in that it sets out to control relations which are not susceptible to legislative control. In so far as the order seeks to regulate what already exists, it will have no effect upon the present situation. In so far as it seeks to prevent a control which has been exercised hitherto by unions, the unions and the best of employers will try to get round the order. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walton did not spend a great deal of time upon the order, he spent as much time on it as it deserved.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. John Page: The Opposition have been particularly schizophrenic tonight. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and from a seated position the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), have complained that, though they do not like the Bill and the emergency provisions, they cannot understand why the Government have not brought them into force. It seems to me that hon. Members should be grateful—

Mr. Heffer: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that I said precisely the opposite. I can well understand why the Government have not brought them in.

Mr. Page: I think that the hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that the Government had not brought them in. and this was the view of the hon. Member for Salford, West also, I think. The

hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that there had already been a ballot in the coal mines. He will recall that the vote in that ballot was 58 per cent. in favour of a strike, which is 3 per cent. above the 55 per cent. needed to call a strike. Had it not been for a change in the N.U.M. rules this year—

Mr. J. D. Concannon: What the hell do you know about it?

Mr. Page: I do not want to take too long, and the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make a speech.

Mr. Concannon: I have 20 miners from my constituency locked up today—not under this Act, because it is irrelevant to it all, but why should I have to come and listen to you waffling while I have 20 miners locked up?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of waffling.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman seems proud that some of his constituents, if they are his constituents, or members of his union, have been locked up.

Mr. Stanley Orme: He did not say that.

Mr. Concannon: Never mind. He is at it again.

Mr. Page: He is concerned that they are locked up, and they are locked up, presumably, because they were involved in non-peaceful picketing. This is something which worries people greatly. It is worrying to the people of Britain that, because of non-peaceful picketing, two power stations are already closed down and are failing to put electricity into the national grid.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There will be some more next week.

Mr. Page: Hon. Members opposite seem to be happy that the public should be inconvenienced in this way. It seems that their attitude to the Industrial Relations Act and the present law covering picketing is that, if there is something in the law which they do not like, the law should be ignored. If that is so, I hope that they will say so in the debate.
The main meat of the Act—[An HON. MEMBER: "Filibuster".] It is hardly fair to be accused of filibustering if one


is hardly allowed to make a speech at all.
This Commencement No. 3 Order brings into force a large part of the Act. It is surprising that so many of its provisions were ignored by the hon. Member for Walton when he opened the debate. He referred to only a couple. I should have expected him to be rather pleased to see Sections 8 and 9 in the list, to mention only two, which stop the free rider. It has been a source of complaint in the trade union movement over the years that there have been members in factories and other establishments who accept the negotiating and other responsibilities of trade unions but pay nothing for them. It is blind of Labour Members continually to ignore any beneficial parts of the Act, to take the attitude of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who achieved a great success during the passing of the Act, and say that what he achieved is of no use to members of the profession for which he speaks. It is a sad reflection on them.
I welcome the Act, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the perspicacious way in which it has been used so far. It is sad that hon. Members opposite, when the country is suffering high unemployment—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And a Tory Government.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to secure the provision, as part of the National Health Service, by local health authorities of voluntary vasectomy services on the same basis as the contraception services provided under the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967, it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session providing for the said services;
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received, by virtue of the said Act of 1967 as amended by the said Act of the present Session, by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamish Gray.]

INCOME TAX (MR. DAVID EVANS)

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of Mr. David Ewart Evans, who is a 74-year-old man, and to indicate the rather unfortunate circumstances in which he comes to be faced with having to pay to the Inland Revenue £543·35 in interest upon back income tax liabilities.
In 1947, Mr. Evans retired through ill-health from his position as a furniture salesman. In order to have a living, he became a stall holder in the local market, selling wool and some clothing. Shortly after the commencement of this business, he was approached by an officer of the

local income tax office, a man who had been in the employment of the Inland Revenue for about 30 years. This man is now deceased and, since the Financial Secretary is aware of his identity, I do not propose to mention his name, in order to save his family from some pain, at any rate.
Suffice it to say that this man stated that he was soon to retire from his Revenue post and wanted to set up as an accountant. He asked Mr. Evans whether he could handle his tax affairs. Mr. Evans agreed. From then until 1966 the man ostensibly acted for him. Mr. Evans sent him year by year his accounts showing income and expenditure, and thereafter Mr. Evans would have a note from his so-called accountant stating that he was not liable for tax in any year, quoting a file number which purported to be the file number allocated by the Inland Revenue authorities to his case, and a bill for professional services which averaged in the case of Mr. Evans the sum of £10 a year.
Mr. Evans' business was not a huge one. Consequently he found nothing remarkable in the fact that he had to pay no tax. Therefore he accepted the so-called accountant's notes in good faith.
In 1966, the so-called accountant died, and Mr. Evans subsequently wrote to his widow asking her about the fate of papers which he had sent to the deceased. The widow replied that she could not trace any, whereupon Mr. Evans went to the income tax authorities. It is accepted by the Treasury, I think, that in so doing he acted promptly. Then the income tax inspector staggered him by saying that Mr. Evans' call was the first intimation that the Revenue had that Mr. Evans was in business as a stall holder at the market or of his being engaged in any trade.
Apparently the deceased had never submitted any returns or performed any of the services that he pretended to have done. He had been engaged in obtaining


money from Mr. Evans which would, if detected during his life, surely have led to a criminal prosecution.
I think that it will be helpful if I interpose here some facts which I know will also be accepted by the Financial Secretary. This was not the only case in which the Revenue had reason to be dissatisfied with the activities of the deceased.
Prior to 1960 the Inland Revenue was aware that there were a number of cases in which the deceased had acted as agent on behalf of taxpayers. He was seen by the District Inspector of the Pontypridd second district in 1962 and asked to give an undertaking not to act as agent for taxpayers. Later the same year a special investigator from the Inland Revenue also found that the deceased or his wife had acted as agent in a number of cases, and it was suspected that one of the two had forged taxpayers' signatures and presented wholly fictitious accounts. The deceased was again asked by the special investigator to give a written undertaking not to act for taxpayers in future. I was told in subsequent correspondence, which I had with the Financial Secretary, that these undertakings were of no efficacy since the Revenue had no control over him at that time.
When the matter came to light Mr. Evans was referred to the services of a reputable accountant and subsequently, after an assessment of 20 years back tax, there was an appeal to the general commissioners sitting at Pontypridd regarding this assessment. The relevant findings of the general commissioners were as follows: first, that wilful default was committed under the Act, not personally by Mr. Evans, but by the deceased on his behalf; secondly, that Mr. Evans had supplied the deceased with the information necessary to prepare income tax returns, but that this had been deliberately withheld by the deceased; and, thirdly, that Mr. Evans had neither expressly nor impliedly authorised the deceased to commit fraud or wilful default on his behalf.
Mr. Evans was therefore charged with £1,250 arrears of tax. I understand that, save for a few pounds, this has been paid. It is also fair to say that the Inland Revenue has waived any penalties which might have been imposed but has charged interest on the money which was

owed from the initial date to date; hence, the sum of £543·35. It is this charge which aggrieves Mr. Evans, and it is one which I believe could be mitigated in whole or in part in this case.
I know that under Section 88(4) of the Taxes Management Act, 1970,
The Board may at their discretion mitigate (whether before or after judgment) any interest due under this section".
Mr. Evans has been charged under this Section.
I am also told by the Financial Secretary that the practice of the Revenue is to mitigate these interest payments only where the full charge would cause hardship. This practice is not enshrined in any statutory provision, and I believe that it is much too restrictive an application of the discretion given to the Revenue in cases such as this.
In this case Mr. Evans is virtually morally blameless of having failed to submit his tax returns, and so on. He was wickedly misled and cheated. Where then are these comparatively rare facts in taxation cases, I believe that consideration of the taxpayer's conduct should be one of the factors which could lead to mitigation. If hardship is the only criterion, then a man whose conduct is much more culpable may be excused the interest payments, whereas a man who is virtually blameless, may have to pay because he can afford to do so.
Second, may I request the Financial Secretary to look again at the definition of hardship. It may be considered as being a hardship that a man who is morally blameless should be called upon to pay so vast a sum at so late a stage. In addition to that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the financial considerations. It is true that the man can, in fact, pay the interest due, but the fact is that to do so would eat up between one-quarter and one-third of his savings, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is a 74-year-old man who owns no house of his own and who therefore has these small, modest savings as his only accumulation from life.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman could easily regard that as hardship and therefore consider a whole or partial remission on that ground. I believe that a partial remission could be justified by the fact


that it was not until 1967 that the taxpayer became aware of the non-payment, and it may be just to limit the interest in this case, if the Financial Secretary is so minded, to the last five years, to the time when the taxpayer himself became aware of the non-disclosure of his tax records, and not charge it over the last 20 years.
The Revenue authorities themselves have not been as diligent in this case on behalf of the taxpayer as they ought to have been. I think it is accepted that there was dissatisfaction on the part of Inland Revenue with the activities of the deceased. Indeed, there were suspicions that he or his wife had committed serious criminal offences. Yet all the Revenue did was on two occasions to interview the deceased and to obtain from him undertakings which they must have known were of no efficacy at all. The Financial Secretary has told me in a letter than the Revenue authorities could not enforce those undertakings against the deceased, and therefore I believe that whoever interviewed him at that time—that is, in about 1960 to 1962—must also have known that the undertakings were of no efficacy.
If they had initiated or considered legal proceedings, even an unsuccessful prosecution of this man would have alerted ordinary, trustful men like Mr. Evans to irregularities at least six years earlier than they came to light. The Revenue chose to rely upon meaningless declarations, upon scraps of paper which they knew were worthless. In those circumstances, the least that can be done by the Revenue authorities is to recognise that fact, albeit tacitly, by mitigating the interest.
Even within the framework of our tax laws as they stand, there are men who, through no fault of their own, in the commonly accepted sense of the word "fault", become involved in words like "wilful default". Such men are bound to be puzzled and aggrieved where their own rôles are honourable. Such a man is Mr. Evans, the subject of this debate. The Minister would be doing both an honourable and a just thing if he were to announce a remission of the whole or part of the interest in this case, and I appeal to him to do so.

11.54 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has put the case on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Evans, with great force and with great persuasiveness. It is a case which he has pursued with great diligence over recent months.
Very briefly, the case may be summed up in the question whether the Inland Revenue is right to demand interest on the arrears of taxes in the rather special circumstances of the case. The hon. Gentleman has stated the facts of the case so fully and so accurately that it spares me the duty of rehearsing them again. Perhaps I might add one gloss to one or two of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman said that the deceased—whose name I shall not mention, either—referred to a file number and thereby added what one might say verisimilitude to the deceit that he was practising on Mr. Evans. In fact, he relied on his experience in the Inland Revenue to choose a file number sufficiently far ahead of the current lists, so that it was never likely to conflict with that of any other taxpayer.
There are three general points I should state by way of background. I am referring not to the particular case of Mr. Evans but to the general position. First, where a taxpayer is found to have committed wilful default within the meaning of the Taxes Acts, the Revenue is entitled to ask not only for the tax which should have been paid and for the interest on that tax down to the date of payment, but also for penalties. Had Mr. Evans' case fallen within that description, not £1,800 but over £4.000 would have been payable.
Second, there was never any question of penalties becoming due—although the General Commissioners did not regard Mr. Evans as being entirely blameless—because there was nothing in the nature of fraud or deliberate intention to conceal. I accept that, when laymen become involved with phrases like "wilful default", which are used in the Taxes Acts, obviously in a special sense, they become a little confused. No one has ever suggested that Mr. Evans has been guilty of any form of dishonesty.
Third, interest is quite different from penalties, which are intended to deter taxpayers from deliberately concealing or mis-stating their income or otherwise fiddling their taxes. But interest is simply intended as a commercial restitution for the late payment of taxes.
Sections 88 and 89 of the Taxes Management Act, 1970, the consolidating Act, provide for interest to be paid where there has been, within the meaning of the Act, wilful default. The logic of this is that the taxpayer has had the use of the money which, if his taxes had been paid at the due date, would have been available to the Revenue and the general body of taxpayers.

Mr. John: Surely it cannot be a purely commercial consideration precisely because of the statutory power of the Revenue to mitigate interest, which is not confined to any class of case.

Mr. Jenkin: That is obviously right, but Section 88 is activated only if there has been a finding of
fraud, wilful default or neglect
The power to mitigate interest is designed to take account of hardship, where, in the extreme case, one cannot get blood from a stone, where it is not possible to expect a taxpayer to pay interest by way of commercial restitution.
I was saying that the logic of this is that the taxpayer has had the money and the Exchequer has not. If the taxpayer had paid his taxes at the due date, he would not have had the money during the period of some 20 years. The Exchequer would have had it.
The value of that money in the hands, as it has been, of the taxpayer is expressed by reference to the interest that it might have earned. I know theft the hon. Gentleman has studied the Section. The rates of interest are not by current standards extravagant, being 3 per cent. up to 1967 and 4 per cent. thereafter. This sum of interest is taken as the measure of the Exchequer's loss and a taxpayer's gain by reason of the taxpayer's failure, for whatever reason, within the meaning of "wilful default", to pay the taxes at the due date. Therefore, it is right that when payment of tax is delayed through the fault of the taxpayer—and this is what activates the Section—the payments when made should carry

interest. As a general proposition this is one which cannot seriously be challenged.
Applying it to the facts of this case, the hon. Gentleman's main argument has been that, because of the activities of the deceased, Mr. Evans himself was not personally guilty of wilful default. It is right that there was a finding by the general commissioners that Mr. Evans did not personally commit wilful default. One must go on to say that these words are to be construed in accordance with the law. The law may be found in cases as well as in the Statute.
The general commissioners were referred to a case which made it clear that, if the agent is guilty of wilful default, that wilful default must be imputed to the principal. As the hon. Gentleman intimated, an appeal was contemplated at one stage from the finding of the general commissioners and a draft case stated was requested from the commissioners. In the draft case stated, the following paragraph appears:
It would be unfortunate if a taxpayer could escape liability by saying, 'I have employed an agent who has failed to submit my accounts. You do not know of my existence until after my agent's death and although he may have been guilty of fraud and wilful default I am not liable for his actions'. The short answer to this argument is that the Revenue is by law automatically interested and is a party in any transaction relating to tax matters between Principal and Agent. To hold otherwise would defeat the very basis of the system of taxation.
It is the Revenue's view that this is a perfectly accurate statement of the law as supported by the cases and that it clearly applies in the present case. Technically, therefore, the commissioners' finding that although Mr. Evans had not personally committed wilful default he is to be taken in the eyes of the law as having been guilty of wilful default, committed through his agent the deceased, is correct.
The hon. Gentleman says that, even though that may be so and the Section is activated, the fact of the matter is that his constituent is "virtually morally blameless". I do not want to put too much on the qualification which the hon. Gentleman himself put when he said "virtually morally blameless", because he knows that the commissioners did not wholly exonerate Mr. Evans. I again quote from the draft case stated:
… we consider that the appellant"—


that is Mr. Evans—
is not entirely blameless for there is no evidence that he ever saw or asked to see prepared accounts or signed returns.
It is highly strange that for 20 years an ordinary man of the world, let alone a man who had served in a commercial capacity as a salesman and who subsequently was in business on his own account, albeit in a small way, could feel that he had done all that was necessary by simply submitting documents and figures and paying an accountant's bill without ever seeing a tax return which he signed or any of the official documents.
That was the finding of the commissioners, and I think that the Revenue is entitled to take note of it. I may add that, although a case stated was asked for by Mr. Evans, in fact it was not proceeded with, no doubt on wise advice.
The hon. Gentleman goes on to say: "In spite of that, the Revenue's interpretation of the power to mitigate interest is much too restrictive, being confined by practice to the concept of hardship". One can make a general point here, that the Revenue, when operating these Sections which give the discretion, has to do something more formal than what one might call palm-tree justice. It has to have a practice. It is part of the philosophy of the Inland Revenue—which I should warmly support—that it attempts to treat in the same way taxpayers who find themselves in the same case. The Revenue does not seek to distinguish between taxpayers who are indistinguishable on the facts. It must, therefore, have a practice.
The practice here is that, if wilful default is established, and if interest is therefore payable, the only circumstance in which it would be right to mitigate interest is if the payment of interest would cause hardship to the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman said that this then lands one in an inconsistency: if a taxpayer who may be very culpable—who may have committed fraud—has little or no means, he may be excused the payment of interest, whereas another taxpayer in the position of Mr. Evans, who is virtually morally blameless but who has had wilful default imputed to him by law, will have to pay interest simply because he has the resources to pay.
I think that I must accept that criticism. If a taxpayer has not got the resources to pay his dues, there is not much that the Inland Revenue can do about it. Of course, if he has been guilty of a crime, he can be sent to gaol; but that does not necessarily get any money out of him from the point of view of the Exchequer. If there had been grounds for a prosecution, the Inland Revenue would have prosecuted; but it would not have been Mr. Evans, it would have been the deceased. The Inland Revenue did what it could in the circumstances as they were known to it at the time.
I argue, therefore, that there is no substance in the hon. Gentleman's argument on the distinction between a man who has been very culpable, as he put it, and a man to whom wilful default has been imputed.
Then, says the hon. Gentleman, it must be hardship in this case if it will mean eating up half or a third of Mr. Evans' savings to pay the interest due on the tax. Here, one is engaged only in hypothesis, but it may well be that these savings could be built up, and interest on them accrue, because Mr. Evans was not paying the tax which he later conceded was due over 20 years but which he allowed, as it were, to fructify in his savings account.
It is difficult in these circumstances to argue that he should be entitled to keep the fruits of that because he is 74, because his savings do not in fact amount to very much, and that he should keep the interest in face of the general body of taxpayers, the vast majority of whom pay their taxes in due time and have not the same opportunity to build up their savings out of taxes which they ought to have paid.
I would answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that he made a moving and powerful plea on behalf of Mr. Evans, but in the circumstances of this case I cannot agree that the Revenue has been wrong in its interpretation of the Section. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Treasury Ministers cannot in the last resort tell the Revenue how to interpret the law.
Perhaps I might add this, though without holding out any hopes at all. If the interest cannot be agreed between the taxpayer and the Revenue, the inspector


must go once again before the commissioners to ask them to make the order for interest. It is open to the taxpayer there to argue that interest should not be paid. I am bound to say that, in the circumstances, I think that it would not be wise for Mr. Evans to spend a lot of his resources, perhaps employing professional help, to fight the case at that stage; but that must be up to him.
At this stage, I cannot see that the Revenue has interpreted the law wrongly.
Interest has accrued on the tax which Mr. Evans ought to have paid over the 20 years in which he was in trade and earning profits. He has the savings out of which to pay it. I think that it is right, in fairness to the general body of taxpayers who pay their taxes on the due date, that interest on this unpaid tax should be paid.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.